From: GINSBURG Andy
Sent: Wed Jul 11 16:01:49 2012
To: ARMITAGE Sarah
Cc: BIBERIC Aida; SAKATA Rachel; CALKINS Larry; COLLIER David; VICK Nicole R.
Subject: FW: KFalls Documents for Notice Approval
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Federal Requirements Questions (702).docx; Fiscal Statement (702).docx; Land Use Statement (702).docx; OAR Div 204 (629).docx; OAR Div 225 (629).docx; OAR Div 240 (629).docx; OAR Div 262 (611).docx; OAR Div 264 (611).docx; Rulemaking Announcement (702).docx; SOS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (702).docx; Team – Great work on these documents. I especially appreciated the rulemaking announcement, which I thought was really well written (I marked only a few minor things I saw). The other documents are well written also – I have a few specific comments and suggestions here and there. Thanks for the great work. Here are a few more general comments I want to highlight: · I’m a little concerned about the rules allowing the use of woodstove offsets in Division 225 and 240. Division 268 covers the creation of emission reduction credits, and my understanding is that credits can be generated by any type of sources, including woodstoves. By specifically allowing woodstove credits only in Klamath Falls in Division 225, I think we would create a conflict that could prevent those credits from being used in other areas. I think what you really are trying to do is to let them out of the net air quality benefit analysis by assuming that a 1.1:1 ratio produces a net air quality benefit – that could be done without implying that other areas can’t use woodstove offsets. Also, you provide quantification of the value of woodstove credits, but it seems like that should be in Division 268 so that we have statewide consistency. Unless I am misunderstanding this, I think this rule language needs some work and more review by DOJ. I’m also wondering if all of this has been discussed in detail with EPA – whenever we get into net air quality benefit, they tend to have a lot of concerns. · The explanation of the purpose of the rulemaking proposal is slightly different in the announcement, fiscal, land use and SOS forms. Generally, I like these to be the same, or at least mostly the same with any needed details added. Could you see if they can be made the same or more similar? · On the federal requirements form, the explanation of alternatives is pretty brief. If the analysis of alternatives is document in the advisory committee report, can you reference that and include it as an attachment or link? If it isn’t documented, can you briefly summarize the alternatives the committee considered and why the rejected them? · There are a couple of places where you mention interagency agreements on burning, but I thought you said that those agreements haven’t happened. I marked them where I saw them, so could you review and see if the statements are still accurate? Thanks. Andy Andy Ginsburg Air Quality Administrator Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (503) 229-5397 - Office (503) 572-7195 - Mobile From: ARMITAGE Sarah Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 5:19 PM To: GINSBURG Andy Cc: BIBERIC Aida; SAKATA Rachel; CALKINS Larry; COLLIER David; VICK Nicole R. Subject: KFalls Documents for Notice Approval Andy, Here is the Kfalls rulemaking package for your review and approval of notice. Your deadline is 7/12. Because of the switch from Paul L. to Paul G., we still have a few outstanding questions and comments in the regulations. Rachel has been in touch with Paul G. and we expect to have his review next week, by the 12th at the latest. We will give you updated rule attachments when we get them. Thanks, Sarah Sarah Armitage DEQ Air Quality Planning 503-229-5186