p. 1 

# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 33 ) ll-F-7 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 33 of 45P. 2 

## A-9 0 

## I T - f - 3 7

NOT E T O DOCKET : The attachecP'Summar

y o f Respons e to OM

B Comments " wa s prepare d by EP A in respons e t o handwritte n comment s o n Clas s I are aissue s mad e b y th e Offic e o f Managemen

t an d faxe d to Denni s Crumpler , EPA , on Novembe r 1 1 an d 12 , 1995 .P. 3 " V

• / "COMMTS.OMB" : 11/2/9 5

' SUMMAR

Y O F RESPONS E TO OM

B COMMENT S PREAMBLE 1 . Delet e "i n whol e o

r i n part " an d "th e AQRV s of . Preamble , p . 164 . "I n whol e o

r in part " deleted ; NP S requeste d retentio n of "th e AQRV s of . Regulator y cite s fo r de f n ar e different , referenc e wa s no t i n error . 2 . Questio n mar

k on p . 165 . Nothin g wa s changed . 3 . Inser t o n p . 166 . Did not

us e th e insert ; NP S expresse d problem s wit h wording an

d wante d to provide substitut

e language . However , suc

h languag e wa s not

provided . Simila

r languag e to OMB' s wa s use d i

n arevise d discussio n on significanc e level s fo r AQRVs . 4 . Questio n mar

k on p . 168 . Paragraph revised ; awor d wa s missing fro

morigina l text . 5 . Di d no t understan d statement s on p . 169 . Paragraph wa s revised . 6 . Questione d phras e "or

whethe r aClas s I are aanalysi s should b e completed " o n p . 171 . Phras e wa s delete d becaus e i t wa s inappropriate . 7 . Delet e paragrap h on p . 171 , dealing wit h th e possibl e need fo

r additiona l analyse s an

d information . Paragraph wa s revised—no t deleted . 8 . Questione d whethe

r Stat e would hav e t

o contact FL M eac h tim e i t wa s contacte d by a prospectiv e applicant . Tex t wa s revise d to clarif

y tha t thi s woul d generally no t

b e necessary . P . 176 . 9 . Ad d "reasonable " (opportunit

y t o participat

e i n pre-app meetings) . Revise d tex t t o sa y tha t FL M "woul d b e expected , wher e possible " t

o infor mthe prospectiv e applican t o f an y Clas s I impac t concerns . P . 176 . 10 . Discussio n about

FLM' s expertis e wa s revised ; include d recommende d change s provide d by OMB . P . 191 . 11 . OM B recommende d change s t

o sentenc e (unde

r descriptio n of

State' s evaluatio n of Scientific/Technica

l Basi s of FLM' s Demonstration) ; entir e sentenc e wa s delete d becaus e i t wa s no t considere d appropriat

e wher e i t was . P . 193 . 12 . OM B recommende d languag e change s based o n recommended change s t o relate d regulator y language . Tex

t wa s revised , bu

t not entirely the wa

y OM B recommended . P . 193 . 13 . OM B aske d whethe

r "integra l vistas " wer

e considere d AQRVs . According t o V . Patto n the

yP. 4

"COMMTS.OMB" : 11/2/9 5 are ; however , o n on e integra l vist aha s bee

n identified . N o text

chang e wa s made . P . 163 . OMB Comments- Cont

'd REGULATIONS 1 . Recommende d addin g ane w paragraph(p)(2)(ii ) describin g the conten t of th e notic e allegin g potentia l impact s o n aClas s I area . Ne w paragraph wa s no

t added , bu t clarifying languag e wa s adde d t o paragrap h (p)(2)(i) . 2 . Recommende d anew paragraph (b)(23)(v ) t o propos e significanc e level s fo r AQRVs . NP S strongly opposed ; paragraph wa s not added . 3 . Recommende d additio n of concept o f significanc e level s fo

r AQRV s in th e de f

n o f "advers e impac t on AQRVs. " NP S strongl y opposed ; chang e wa s not made . 4 . Recommende d revise d text fo r paragraph (p)(6)(iii) . Som e change s wer

e made , but

EP A di d no t eliminat e th e requiremen

t tha t th e FLM' s demonstratio n an d the State' s rejectio n b e note d i n th e publi c notic e invitin g comment .