Conference Call Documentation

Subject:  EPA / National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Conference Call on ICR Renewals for 40 CFR Part 70 & 71 – Summary of
Comments Received and EPA Response.

Date of Call: April 11, 2007. 

Participants:  

EPA:  Bill Harnett, Division Director, OAQPS; Michael Ling, Associate
Director, OAQPS; Jeff Herring, Environmental Scientist, OPG. 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA): Permitting Committee
Monthly Conference Call Attendees.

Purpose of Call:  EPA is in the process of revising the ICRs for part 70
and part 71 under title V of the Clean Air Act – both ICRs expire on
June 30, 2007, pursuant to ICR extensions granted by OMB.  At the time
of the call the first FR notice asking for comments had been issued and
EPA has seeking input before submitting the renewal ICR to OMB for
review and final approval. 

Comments for NACAA and EPA response

NACAA Comment:  A representative from the Michigan DEQ, a State
permitting agency, asked EPA to clarify in the supporting statement for
the part 70 ICR that the burdens imposed by MACT, NSPS, CAM and other
federal rules and standards, such as requirements for monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting (MRR) under those rules, are not burdens
counted under the part 70 ICR, although the burdens of writing permit
conditions to reflect those requirements should be counted.  She felt
that this was an important point that many NACAA reviewers had not fully
understood in the past, and that this clarification could help with
future consultations. 

  

EPA Response:  EPA will revise the supporting statement for the part 70
ICR to clarify that the burdens of imposing applicable requirement
(e.g., MRR required by separate rules) covered by other ICRs should not
be counted as title V burdens.  EPA believes this could assist with
future consultations on part 70 burden.  Also, EPA notes that part 70
directly imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements, such as
deviation reporting,  six-month monitoring reports, annual compliance
certification, and periodic monitoring in limited cases, thus part 70
burdens for MRR in the ICR will remain unchanged. 

NACAA Comment:  A representative from Dayton Ohio (RAPCA), a regional
permitting agency, asked that EPA clarify that the part 70 requirement
for a “Statement of Basis” be listed in the supporting statement as
an activity clearly required by part 70 for permitting authorities when
they are writing permits for sources, but did not ask for any change on
burden estimate based on this clarification, as it appears to be covered
under programs administration or permit drafting activities.

EPA Response:  EPA will add “statement of basis” to the text
description of the permit drafting activity for permitting authorities. 
This has always been a requirement of part 70 but the text of the
supporting statements did not have the level of detail necessary to
reflect this.

NACAA Comment:  A representative from Colorado APCD, a State permitting
agency, stated that he thought the burden hour estimates in Table 3 (of
the supporting statement) did not adequately reflect the burdens of
performing public participation (such as public hearing and public
comments) for permit renewals, significant modification, and to a lesser
extent, for minor permit modification – without specifying what the
new estimates should be.  Also he thought the burden-hour estimates for
administrative amendment are too low – he also did not specify a new
estimate.

EPA Response:  EPA told the callers we would re-examine these burden
estimates and determine if they warrant revision.  After review, we
decided to change the burden hours for permitting authorities for permit
renewal and significant modification from 60 hours per activity to 90
hours per activity and minor modification from 20 hours to 30 hours to
more adequately reflect the burdens of public participation, EPA review,
and/or affected state review and various notification activities related
to these tasks.  Also, we decided to not change the burden for
administrative amendment (5 hours) because there is no public, EPA, or
affected State review involved and this is usually accomplished through
correspondence.

NACAA Comment:  A representative form San Diego County APCD, a local air
permitting agency, asked that public petition-related activities
performed by EPA be clarified and more adequately reflected in the part
70 ICR. This commenter also asked for a follow-up call to provide a few
other detailed comments.  The call was held on April 17, with the caller
asking for a more detailed listing of the activities typically performed
by permitting agencies.  He clarified that he was not asking for a
different estimate of burdens, only that there be a more specific
listing of specific activities they perform, especially with respect to
the activities of program administration and drafting permits, within
the text description for the activities. He specifically mentioned
activities of date entry into EPA’s AFS permit data system, writing a
“statement of basis” for the permit, and enforcement activities
related to title V compliance reporting.

EPA Response:  EPA agrees to clarify EPA’s public petition-related
activities.  These activities have increased in recent years and will be
important for several years to come.  We told them we would review this.
 In response we decided to add programs oversight as a separate entry in
several tables related to EPA activities and to clarify and update EPA
burdens related to public petitions.  Also EPA has provided more detail
within the text description of various permitting authority activities
in the supporting statement.

