From: ROICK Tom
Sent: Mon Jan 30 14:07:17 2012
To: WESTBROOK Esther; VICK Nicole R.
Subject: RE: TV docs
Importance: Normal
Esther,
Go with your preference. Revising the whole section is consistent with what we’ve done before so I don’t see the need to do it differently unless there is a really good reason. I’m glad we asked the question though, it was educational!
Nicole, if this still causes you heartburn, let’s discuss.
Tom
From: WESTBROOK Esther
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:59 PM
To: VICK Nicole R.; ROICK Tom
Subject: RE: TV docs
Attached are documents where changes have been made using the two different styles. (Please note that not all changes have been made as I still have a few calculations to finish.) The one named .v2 implements the changes as suggested by Tom and Nicole. The one named .rev implements the changes as I did it originally, plus the change suggested by Andrea. In my opinion, there is a big difference in clarity between the two methods. By only deleting the numbers and years throughout, there is less distinction between the fees we are keeping in place for the current period, the ones we are getting rid of and the ones we are adopting for the future. A reader has to look at several sections to trace the path of a fee for a certain year. In -0030 we are repealing 2 fees, keeping one and adding 2, but just switching all the numbers around makes this hard to follow, as opposed to striking out the entire sections that are being repealed, editing the one that we are keeping but changing the dates in, and adding on the new fees.
I can understand Maggie’s preference in general, but I don’t think it necessarily works very well in the fee setting scenario, because changing numbers ($ and dates) is a small change text-wise but it has a big impact.
From: VICK Nicole R.
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:56 PM
To: WESTBROOK Esther; ROICK Tom
Subject: FW: TV docs
I asked Maggie – her answers are below highlighted in gray and yellow as to when an entire section of a rule should be struck out and when portions should be. The deciding point depends more on if the section has a lot of changes (strike out entire) or minimal (strike out relevant parts). I think that makes sense.
Anyone else?
From: VANDEHEY Maggie
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:50 PM
To: VICK Nicole R.
Subject: RE: TV docs
Answers below…
From: VICK Nicole R.
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:35 AM
To: VANDEHEY Maggie
Subject: FW: TV docs
Maggie-
What I thought to be a more simple question once again enlightens me to think that perhaps nothing is simple?
Esther had a question about “proper redlining” and here are the two scenarios:
1. Strike out entire section and then re-write, (Use this when the section requires a massive overhaul. When the entire rule has a lot of changes, it may make sense to repeal it and adopt a new rule IF IT DOES NOT IMPACT A NUMBER OF OTHER RULES.)
2. Strike out specific area within section with new language (Use this when there are a few changes. For some messy sentence restructuring it may make sense to strike the entire sentence and before adding a new sentence.)
I told Esther there isn’t a hard and fast way defined. My preference is to strikeout only the part that is being revised. (I gave her additional info as to why and this happens when I have to go research a rule, etc.) (The idea is that the amendments are clear.)
Esther asked Andrea about this. Apparently, there is a guideline about this. Can you confirm? What are your thoughts? If this really is how AQ or the agency does this, I would like to disagree if I can. Can we talk about this a little later today?
I don’t think this warrants contacting DOJ, do you?
From: WESTBROOK Esther
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:24 AM
To: ROICK Tom
Cc: VICK Nicole R.
Subject: FW: TV docs
Tom,
Please see Andrea’s email below and the attached document. Let me know how you would like me to proceed.
-Esther
From: CURTIS Andrea
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:12 AM
To: WESTBROOK Esther
Cc: CURTIS Andrea
Subject: RE: TV docs
Hi Esther, My changes are attached. In regards to Tom's and Nicole's comments about the mechanics of redline/strikeout vs. eliminating/replacing rule sections, in the past we've used both mechanics depending on the type of revision:
1. Existing fee period: In past Title V fee increase rulemakings, when we are adopting a fee increase for an existing fee period, we redline/strikeout the old fee in the existing rule section. This makes it clear that we are CHANGING the fee for an EXISTING period (e.g. an increase to the specific activity fees beginning Jan. 1, 2012, where fees for that period were already adopted in a previous rulemaking) -- You did not follow this mechanic for the specific activity fees beginning Jan. 1, 2012; this is the only rule section where this mechanic would apply. I recommend you make the change.
2. New fee period: In past Title V fee increase rulemakings, when we are adopting a new fee for a new fee period, and eliminating an old fee for an old fee period, we eliminate the old rule section and add a new rule section. In my opinion, this makes our intent clearer (compared to revising existing fees and revising existing fee periods). --You did this throughout the rule.
I think that what we've done in the past (both mechanics depending on revision type) is the proper way to amend these fee rules for the greatest clarity; it also maintains consistency across subsequent Title V fee rulemakings. If Tom and Nicole recommend changing the mechanics, I suggest getting input from Paul Logan, and doing so before making the changes, since he's been advising Air Quality on rulewriting for years.
Andrea
From: WESTBROOK Esther
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:55 PM
To: CURTIS Andrea
Subject: FW: TV docs
Andrea –
I checked with Nicole and thought I should check with you too, as Tom suggested. Please see the attached and weigh in on what you think is the proper way to show the rule amendments. Thank you!
-e
From: VICK Nicole R.
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:24 PM
To: WESTBROOK Esther
Subject: RE: TV docs
It is preferred to edit the specific items. However, like a lot in the AG’s manual, there is no concrete way to do it.
There was a previous rule done that way, and I’d have to say it’s a bit more confusing redlining the entire section. The reason is because later on, when you have to look up what happened previously, coming across something that was entirely redlined takes longer to uncover that indeed only part of it was edited rather than the entire lot. Maybe it’s me, but when I see an entire redlined section, it makes me first think and operate under the assumption that it was entirely deleted instead of revised.
Does this help? Sorry there isn’t a concrete way!
From: WESTBROOK Esther
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:59 PM
To: VICK Nicole R.
Subject: FW: TV docs
Hi Nicole,
Do you know if there is a specific format for redlining the proposed rules? I deleted entire sections because I saw it was previously done that way, but Tom is asking if we can just edit them. I didn’t see anything on point in the AG’s manual, and wasn’t sure if there was some direction from SOS on this. I personally think it looks cleaner, though more voluminous, the way I did it, but I don’t know if there is reasoning behind either approach. Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Esther
From: ROICK Tom
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42 PM
To: WESTBROOK Esther
Subject: RE: TV docs
Ether,
The documents look great. I made some suggestions. Please check with Andrea or Nicole/Maggie on the need to redline whole sections rather than just the numbers. I’d like to know if we really need to, and it would shorten the revisions quite a bit.
Thanks!
Tom
From: WESTBROOK Esther
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:08 AM
To: ROICK Tom
Subject: TV docs
Hi Tom,
I’ve put the notice documents for your review on AQ common here: G:\Title_V_Fee_Increase. They are in a subfolder labeled “Tom’s Review.” According to the schedule you have 5 days (Feb. 1) to review, but if you could get it done faster that would be great since we’re on a compressed schedule. Just let me know when you are done reviewing and editing. The next step is to send it to Andy. Thanks!
Esther L. Westbrook
Air Quality Policy Analyst
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
phone: 503-229-6457