From: PICKERELL Loretta
Sent: Thu Mar 29 10:54:14 2012
To: PERRY Marylou; WOODROW Beth
Subject: FW: JUSTICE-#3288901-v3-e-waste_fee_rulesmlpcmmts032812B.DOCX
Importance: Normal
Attachments: JUSTICE-#3288901-v4-e-waste_fee_rulesLPCmts.DOCX; Here’s Gary’s version 4 of the rules – I’ve added the changes I made to incorporate Beth’s comments from yesterday- Revenue Need rule (5) and (6). Loretta From: PICKERELL Loretta Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:36 AM To: WILES Wendy; MASON Palmer Subject: FW: JUSTICE-#3288901-v3-e-waste_fee_rulesmlpcmmts032812B.DOCX Wendy and Palmer- Attached are the draft E-Cycles registration fee rules. You’ll want to pay particular attention to the Revenue Need language. Two issues – have not yet discussed with you, Palmer- they came up this week: · Larry K does not want to move forward with the concept of setting target revenue (now called “revenue need”) in rules for 2012 and 2013 and providing a process for reviewing and revising target revenue in consultation with an advisory committee. We had discussed this concept with Gary and understood DOJ supported that concept – and had early draft rule concepts from DOJ with that language included - and represented that to the advisory committee in our meetings with them. (You’ll see the lined out language with this concept under Revenue Need in the attached draft rules.) The rule now establishes the revenue need for 2012-2015 and beyond. I had asked Gary about including a subsection saying that if in the department determines that revenue need will be less than provided in this rule, the department may reduce that revenue need after consultation with and advisory group. Larry does not support that concept either. The concern is that because revenue need is integral to the fees the mfrs pay, allowing DEQ to revise the revenue need would be delegating authority to set fees to DEQ outside of rulemaking. The EQC could delegate rulemaking for fee setting to DEQ, but that is a different process - -although one I would like to explore. · The revenue need for FY beginning 7/1/13 is $450K vs. $435K as we had discussed with the adv comm.. The increase from $415K in FY12/13 to $435K was to cover the costs for adding new products, potentially including e-readers currently defined as CEDs under our law (e.g., buying market data, signage changes, finding/notifying mfrs). We had planned to absorb mandatory personnel increases in FY13/14, but given the 13% increase, we will have difficulty paring personnel costs by that much. The additional $15K, from $435K to $450K, will cover 5% of that increase, so we’ll still need to absorb the other 8% by paring personnel costs. At this point, I’m planning to send an email explaining the proposed rules – and shift in concept - -to the adv comm. and list of people who have attended their meetings tomorrow morning. We need to post the rules by COB Friday to open public comment on 4/1. I could also try to schedule a conference call next week with adv comm. to answer any questions – but may simply invite them in the Friday email to contact me with questions. We could potentially pull the notice from SOS Bulletin to be released 4/1, but have missed Monday,3/26, deadline for doing that and would have to see if that is possible. Even if not, we could still potentially postpone comment period, although that would be more complicated. I am planning on moving forward with notice on the attached draft rules unless you have objections. Please let me know if you have comments on the rules or moving forward or want to discuss this situation further. Thanks Loretta From: PICKERELL Loretta Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:00 AM To: 'Vrooman Gary L' Subject: RE: JUSTICE-#3288901-v3-e-waste_fee_rulesmlpcmmts032812B.DOCX Gary – I noted a few tweaks in Revenue Need (5) and (6) and included comments w/today’s date in bold to highlight those. I’ll try to call after 11:30 to discuss what I should tell adv committee re: changing directions. As we discussed, I have earlier informed them that DOJ had reviewed the rule concepts and agreed we could set the 2012/2013 target revenues in rule and provide the process described in the earlier drafts for reviewing/revising target revenue. The adv comm. will likely want at least a subsection saying that if in the department determines that revenue need will be less than provided in this rule, the department may reduce that revenue need after consultation with and advisory group. I need to get an email out to the adv comm. today or early Friday explaining the proposed rules before we publish them on our Web. Thanks, Loretta From: Vrooman Gary L [mailto:Gary.L.Vrooman@doj.state.or.us] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:32 AM To: PICKERELL Loretta Subject: RE: JUSTICE-#3288901-v3-e-waste_fee_rulesmlpcmmts032812B.DOCX These look pretty good to me. I made a little tweak to the definitions section on the attached draft. I’ll be in meetings until around 11:30. Let me know if you need me to look at anything. From: PICKERELL Loretta [mailto:PICKERELL.Loretta@deq.state.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:39 PM To: Vrooman Gary L Subject: JUSTICE-#3288901-v3-e-waste_fee_rulesmlpcmmts032812B.DOCX Gary – Looking like a rule! Here are a few comments from staff and me. Tidbits I’m following up on: · I’ll need to check w/staff re: “to be collected” tomorrow – but think that is OK. · I’ve also noted a few questions under Revenue Need – and have asked Beth to look at this as drafted. · Mary Lou just forwarded language she thinks simplifies the overview paragraph in the Registration fee section – I’ll look at that and get back to you if it looks promising. I’ve alerted Wendy that we’re changing course on setting/revising revenue need – and will send her this draft. I’ll need to highlight and explain the changes to the advisory committee - -and may talk with you tomorrow re: how to explain that. Mary Lou will send a draft of the rules to Maggie V, our agency rules coordinator tomorrow. I’ll be in the office tomorrow until about 1:45 and then out for a couple hours for a doctor appointment. Thanks much, Loretta *****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. ************************************