A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1	First Name	Last Name	Email Address	Organization	State	Comment	Additional Document
2	Rob	Vance	vance.robert@deq.state.or.us	DEQ	OR	There is a typo in Div 264-0130 (A), Multnomah burn rules on where the burn bountay is. after looking at it and going over the information I have I believe the typo is 172nd and I believe it should be 162nd. I attach a map of the discrepancy. please give me a call and I can fill you in on what I found.	C:\Users\rvance\Desktop\true boundary.docx
3	Tonnie	Cummings	tonnie_cummings@nps.gov	National Park Service		The National Park Service appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments about Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s June 16, 2014, proposed amendments to chapter 340 of the Oregon Administrative Rules. 340-204-0050, Designation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas, (1)(i), Page 87 – Crater Lake National Park was established in 1902 by Public Law 32 Stat. 20. The park currently has no designated wilderness, so Public Law 88-577 does not apply. Also, delete “and expanded in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.� Crater Lake’s last boundary expansion occurred in 1980 under Public Law 96-553. 340-224-0030, New Source Review Procedural Requirements, (5)(a)(A), Page 284 - We recommend that for the first extension, the source also be required to review the original Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) or Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis to determine if lower emission limits are feasible. 340-224-0030, New Source Review Procedural Requirements, (5)(a) and (5)(b), Pages 284-285 - For both a first and a second extension, we recommend the source be required to evaluate LAER or BACT for any pollutants with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that have been developed since the original application was submitted. The source should also be required to demonstrate compliance with any new NAAQS that have been developed since the original application was submitted. 340-224-0030, New Source Review Procedural Requirements, (5)(a) and (5)(b), Pages 284-285 - We recommend the rules require the Department of Environmental Quality to notify Federal Land Managers about requests for permit extensions. Please contact me at tonnie_cummings@nps.gov or 360-816-6201 if you have any questions about our comments or need additional information.
4	Gitanjali	Hursh	anju@bust.com	home owner & private citizen	Oregon	I have lived in Oregon for 35 of my 41 yrs. In recent years I have developed asthma & I can't help but wonder if moving back into SE, near Johnson Creek & Precision Cast parts has something to do with my half lung capacity.I understand that PCP might provide local jobs but at the cost of what? Stricter regulations on air pollutants is a no brainer.
5	John	Hayes	jhayes@pacificu.edu	Forest Grove School Board	Oregon	I wish to present written testimony, below, on the revision to DEQ’s air quality rules, specifically as applied to semiconductor manufacturing permits. I am Chair of the Forest Grove School District Board and am writing this in the interest of protecting children’s health. In the November 4, 2013, letter from Thomas R. Wood, Stoel Rives attorney for Intel, to David Monro of Oregon DEQ, Attorney Wood stated on pages 7 & 8: “Intel is willing to go beyond what is required by the Department’s regulations in order to assure its neighbors that the company is not making the air unsafe to breathe. If better informing the community what is in its air involves extensive additional testing and undergoing additional permitting, the company is willing to do that. … Intel anticipates requesting that the Department incorporate the ongoing commitments made to the community into the final Title V permit. Intel is also committing to submit a PSD application covering, at a minimum, its fluoride and GHG emissions. While we do not believe Intel has triggered PSD to date, Intel wants to address the D1X expansion in the most public way possible to ensure that the community has independent verification that Intel is employing Best Available Control Technology (“BACT�) for fluorides and GHGs.� The key points in Attorney Wood’s paragraph quoted above are these: • Intel is willing to go beyond DEQ regulations • Intel is willing to undergo additional testing and permitting beyond requirements • Intel has committed to submitting a PSD application covering fluoride and GHG emissions • Intel wants to ensure that the community has independent verification that it is employing Best Available Control Technology I believe that, in the interest of protecting children’s health, it is important for Oregon DEQ to adopt rules that Intel (and any other producer of semiconductors or related materials) has agreed to that would employ Best Available Control Technology for fluoride and other toxic emissions. Specifically, please retain Oregon's current regulations and add to Section (66) "Federal Major Source," part (e), source categories: (66) (e) (CC) Manufacturing - semiconductor and related devices; Thank you. Sincerely, John Hayes, Chair Forest Grove School District Board
6	Michael	Byrne	mbstonemason@gmail.com	ordinary citizen	Oregon	There is so much in the air that we breathe that singly could be considered non toxic or even benign when considered individually. Many of these chemicals combine in the atmosphere to actually create a very hazardous "stew" You know the statistics for asthma and autism... please lower the allowable levels of "neurotoxins" in our air. Please take into consideration the cumulative affects of concentrations in neighborhoods and the "spike phenomenon" where total releases remain within limits, but concentrated bursts create poor air quality We must do this for our children. Thank you.
7	Michael	Byrne	mbstonemason@gmail.com	ordinary citizen	Oregon	Please consider the cumulative affect of all the neurotoxins in any given neighborhood. Some air sheds are already overloaded. Spikes occur frequently in the manufacturing process, and may be below within allowable limits, but nonetheless create unhealthy air situations when they occur. No single release should be above a set level. Please do this for the children. Thank you	4 Naphthalene.docx
8	Pat	clark	nmppj@comcast.net		OR	I know you cannot avoid this change because of Supreme Court rulings. However, I am heartbroken that my Oregon has to abandon, in this instance, its quest to protect our land, our wildlife and our people. We are different. We are Oregon.
9	Darren	Nichols	darren.nichols@gorgecommission.org	Columbia River Gorge Commission	Oregon and Washington	See attached letter
10	James	Pena	jpena@fs.fed.us	USDA Forest Service	Oregon	Please see the attached file.	FScommentsonDEQRuleMaking.pdf
11	Sam	H	sam.hartsfield@portofportland.com	Port of Portland	Oregon	See attached file	2014-08-28-Port Comments - DEQ Proposed Rule Changes(F)signed.pdf
12	Elysia	Treanor	Elysia.Treanor@pgn.com	Portland General Electric	Oregon	Please see the attached comments	PGE DEQ Rulemaking Comment Letter_Final_08282014.pdf
13						Please see the attached pdf document.	FOCG Comments - DEQ Air Quality Rule Revisions.pdf
14	Peter	Nelson	pete@marcnelsonoil.com	Marc Nelson Oil Products	Oregon	I understand that small gasoline dispensing facilities are exempt from DEQ air quality permitting and reporting. I think the same should be true for small cardlock gasoline dispensing facilities. The type of business is so similar why should they be held to different permitting and reporting requirements??
15	Rafael	Ortega	rafael1c@yahoo.com	IQ Collision Center INC	Oregon	I believe we need to take care our world and by doing this Cain of inspections is the only way we will get a better place to live the only thing I'm not agreed is that the system take advantage of the situation and they forget what this services are for, they only see how to make money from the public for them to keep theirs job secure, reason I'm saying this is because I pay $860.00 every year (well they started $640.004 years ago now is $860.00 my question is they increase the rate according to what? according how mach raises they have? again why I'm saying this this people never stop by my shop and see what do I need to do different they never stop to give a good information what we can do better for this world. but they do threat me if I don't pay the bill on time, so that show me that we us a public, all we are for this associations is MONEY, for they to have a job, also for the smock on the regular vehicles I ask the other day why there price went up to the person is at the services, answer from that person NO IDEA , I ask if they have a new equipment he replied to me no that the equipment is being there for so many years, so again I hope this entities do what they suppose to do not yes for there pay checks and keep giving there self a raises or bonuses,)
16	Martha	Moore	marthamoorepe@gmail.com	Individual	Oregon	Letter attached.	DEQ GDF Comment Letter.pdf
17	Richard	Till	ricktill@gmail.com	Friends of the Columbia Gorge	OR		FOCG - DEQ Air Quality Rule Revisions_9_15_2014.pdf
18	Richard	Till	rick@gorgefriends.org	Friends of the Columbia Gorge		Please use this submission and disregard the comment attached earlier on Sept. 15.	FOCG FINAL Comment_DEQ Air Quality Rules_9.15.2014.pdf
19	Richard	Till	rick@gorgefriends.org	Friends of the Columbia Gorge		Friends provides the following recommendation as a supplement to our prior comment. Friends recommends that the DEQ designated the Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness as a Class I area subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration standards. The Clean Air Act expressly authorizes that "a State may redesignate such areas as it deems appropriate as class one areas[.]" 42 USC 7474. Pursuant to this authority, the state should provide additional protection to the Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. Sincerely, Richard Till Conservation Legal Advocate