Comments clarification from Bob Lopez, Wisconsin Resident

Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517-0016
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Received Date: April 11 2007, at 10:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: April 11 2007, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: December 7 2006, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: January 8 2007, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 802241d0
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

"Lopez, Robert W - DNR" <Robert.Lopez@Wisconsin.gov> 03/15/2007 01:29 PM To: "Kessler, Kevin K - DNR" <Kevin.Kessler@wisconsin.gov>, Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, John Mooney/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Rothblatt/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Vinson Hellwig <HELLWIGV@michigan.gov> cc: "Shea, Allen K - DNR" <Allen.Shea@wisconsin.gov>, "Bruss, Larry H - DNR" <Larry.Bruss@wisconsin.gov> Subject: RE: Robert Lopez's Comments on Michigan's Ozone Redesignation Request Dear Addressees It was brought to my attention yesterday that communications I had with Region 5 regarding standing redesignation requests in the Lake Michigan basin became part of the Docket #EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517 regarding the State of Michigan's request to redesignate the Grand Rapids nonattainment area to attainment status for the 8-hour ozone standard. Those communications, were added to the docket and attributed as official comments of the State of Wisconsin apparently based on the e-mail source of the communications. This was an unfortunate occurrence and I take responsibility for the e-communications portion of that occurrence. Having reviewed the initial transmittals, by and large they continue to reflect my personal perception regarding disparate application of both the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance addressing the Act across portions of the region and nationally. However, I must iterate these personal views were intended as part of my normal ongoing communication with the Regional EPA office regarding state Ozone plan development and refinement and came in the interest of balancing state and regional approaches to the resolving the region's ongoing ozone problem. I did not and do not construe the communication of concern as the formal policy of the State of Wisconsin and thought in my titling to have indicated pretty clearly that it was my personal stance. Hence, I request that at a minimum the Regional EPA staff adjust the docket heading for the related items (item #'s 0012, 0012.1, 0012.2 and 0013) as a personal communication in any Docket Comment, addressed as either "Bob Lopez, Wisconsin Resident, BobLopezWI@aol.com" or "Bob Lopez, Citizen Comment", whichever you feel is most appropriate, and not as a communication reflecting the State of Wisconsin's formal stance. Had I fully realized the Docket would contain some portion of my concerns, I would have transmitted a formal comment addressed to the Docket from my personal e-mail and would certainly have been more cautious in terms of content and primary points. I also would be clear to meet basic guidelines regarding my role as a state air program staff person. Because the comments in question have been part of the public record for almost 2 months, regardless of my initial intent, I am reticent to request that EPA completely remove the comments as my Bureau Director, Kevin Kessler, has requested of EPA. I do not want to compromise other legitimate comments, nor do I feel it appropriate to expunge the standing record. It is both difficult and imperative that the public aspects of the various SIPs development remain transparent. I owe and have tried to formally communicate my own apology in this matter to the Michigan Air Director for not directly communicating my questions and concerns, and, I hope that as the regional process moves forward the states endeavor as a group to communicate their intent regarding actions that may impact the regional planning process. I remain concerned that the uncertainty regarding the EPA ozone guidance pertaining to Clean Data/Redesignation Requirements, NOx Control Exemption Requirements and the actual SIP Implementation requirements continue to confound any comprehensive ozone control strategy for the Lake Michigan region as a whole. Resolving that dilemma without sole dependence on Section 126 actions was part of the basis of LADCO's formation in the first place, and, as Vince continues to remind me, will be one of the most important aspects moving forward. Again, please accept my apologies for the confusion regarding e-docket comments. Sincerely Bob Lopez

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 9
Citizen comment via e-mail
Public Submission    Posted: 01/12/2007     ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517-0007

Jan 08,2007 11:59 PM ET
Comment letter from Barry Gilbert
Public Submission    Posted: 01/12/2007     ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517-0008

Jan 08,2007 11:59 PM ET
Supplemental comment from Barry Gilbert
Public Submission    Posted: 01/12/2007     ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517-0009

Jan 08,2007 11:59 PM ET
Comment from the Crystal Lake & Watershed Association
Public Submission    Posted: 01/12/2007     ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517-0010

Jan 08,2007 11:59 PM ET
Comment from the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
Public Submission    Posted: 01/12/2007     ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517-0011

Jan 08,2007 11:59 PM ET