p.1 

OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

33) ll-F-76 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 33 of 45 
P.2 

A-90 

IT - f 

- 37 

NOTE TO DOCKET: 

The attachecP'Summary of Response to OMB Comments" was prepared by EPA in 

response to handwritten comments on Class I area issues made by the Office of Management and 

faxed to Dennis Crumpler, EPA, on November 11 and 12, 1995. 
P.3 

"V 

•/ 

"COMMTS.OMB": 11/2/95 

' SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO OMB COMMENTS 

PREAMBLE 

1. Delete "in whole or in part" and "the AQRVs of. Preamble, p. 164. 

"In whole or in part" deleted; NPS requested retention of "the AQRVs of. 

Regulatory cites for def n are different, reference was not in error. 

2. Question mark on p. 165. Nothing was changed. 

3. Insert on p. 166. Did not use the insert; NPS expressed problems with wording and wanted to 

provide substitute language. However, such language was not provided. Similar language to 

OMB's was used in a revised discussion on significance levels for AQRVs. 

4. Question mark on p. 168. Paragraph revised; a word was missing from original text. 

5. Did not understand statements on p. 169. Paragraph was revised. 

6. Questioned phrase "or whether a Class I area analysis should be completed" on p. 171. 

Phrase was deleted because it was inappropriate. 

7. Delete paragraph on p. 171, dealing with the possible need for additional analyses and 

information. Paragraph was revised—not deleted. 

8. Questioned whether State would have to contact FLM each time it was contacted by a 

prospective applicant. Text was revised to clarify that this would generally not be necessary. 

P. 176. 

9. Add "reasonable" (opportunity to participate in pre-app meetings). Revised text to say that 

FLM "would be expected, where possible" to inform the prospective applicant of any Class I 

impact concerns. P. 176. 

10. Discussion about FLM's expertise was revised; included recommended changes provided by 

OMB. P. 191. 

11. OMB recommended changes to sentence (under description of State's evaluation of 

Scientific/Technical Basis of FLM's Demonstration); entire sentence was deleted because it was 

not considered appropriate where it was. P. 193. 

12. OMB recommended language changes based on recommended changes to related regulatory 

language. Text was revised, but not entirely the way OMB recommended. P. 193. 

13. OMB asked whether "integral vistas" were considered AQRVs. According to V. Patton they 
P.4 

"COMMTS.OMB": 11/2/95 

are; however, on one integral vista has been identified. No text change was made. P. 163. 

OMB Comments- Cont 'd 

REGULATIONS 

1. Recommended adding a new paragraph(p)(2)(ii) describing the content of the notice alleging 

potential impacts on a Class I area. New paragraph was not added, but clarifying language was 

added to paragraph (p)(2)(i). 

2. Recommended a new paragraph (b)(23)(v) to propose significance levels for AQRVs. NPS 

strongly opposed; paragraph was not added. 

3. Recommended addition of concept of significance levels for AQRVs in the def n of "adverse 

impact on AQRVs." NPS strongly opposed; change was not made. 

4. Recommended revised text for paragraph (p)(6)(iii). Some changes were made, but EPA did 

not eliminate the requirement that the FLM's demonstration and the State's rejection be noted in 

the public notice inviting comment.