Public
Notice
of
Draft
Permit
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
13
185
The
Confederated
Salish
and
Kootenai
tribes
of
the
Flathead
Indian
Reservation
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
the
public
comment
period
for
the
CGP
until
February
20,2003.
The
Tribes
submit
this
request
for
the
following
reasons:
First,
the
Tribal
Point
Source
Coordinator
was
away
for
professional
development
from
the
latter
part
of
December,
2002,
until
this
week.

The
Coordinator
is
responsible
for
review
of
the
proposed
CGP,
and
for
coordinating
the
assessment
of
its
effects
on
Tribal
operations
and
programs.
 
EPA
believes
that
fair
notice
was
given
on
the
draft
construction
general
permit
and
did,
in
fact,
extend
the
comment
period
for
an
additional
ten
days.
EPA
received
no
advanced
notice
from
the
commenter
about
their
request
to
extend
the
comment
period
until
the
actual
due
date
for
comments.
1050
13
194
It
is
important
to
point
out
that
the
current
proposed
general
construction
permit
is
significantly
different
from
the
1998
construction
general
permit,
even
though
NAHB
and
other
stakeholders
had
been
assured
by
EPA
staff
during
the
proposed
ELGs
comment
period
that
the
soon
to
be
proposed
construction
general
permit
would
virtually
be
the
same
as
the
1998
version.
However,
this
tuns
out
not
to
be
the
case,
as
the
proposed

construction
general
permit
has
a
section
titled
"
Summary
of
Significant
Changes
to
the
1998
Construction
General
Permit"
that
includes
no
fewer
than
17
changes,
some
of
which
are
indeed
significant.
As
a
result,...
NAHB
is
very
concerned
that
the
public
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
ELGs
[
Effluent
Limitation
Guidelines]

with
full
knowledge
of
the
current
general
permit
proposal.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
the
public
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
CGP.
EPA
believes
that
the
public
comment
period
provided
sufficient
review
and
comment
opportunity
for
the
proposed
CGP.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
many
of
the
changes
listed
were
administrative
in
nature,
such
as
modifying
the
permit
to
include
eligibility
and
waiver
provisions
for
small
construction
activities
or
to
include
standard
conditions.
1057
1
Public
Notice
of
Draft
Permit
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
13
195
NAHB,
also,
takes
this
opportunity
to
address
our
concerns
with
the
timing
of
the
proposal.
EPA
has
known
since
December
1999,
that
a
permit
for
Phase
II
had
to
be
in
place
no
later
than
March
10,2003.
Yet
EPA
waited
until
December
20,2002,
to
publish
a
draft
permit,
which
by
EPA's
own
admission
includes
significant
changes
from
the
1998
construction
general
permit,
and
initially
provided
a
45­
day
comment
period,
which
coincided
with
the
holiday
period,
and
which
was
the
Friday
before
the
comments
were
due
on
the
proposed
Effluent
Limitation
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Construction
and
Development
Category.
When
NAHB
and
other
affected
parties
asked
EPA
to
extend
the
comment
period,
EPA
extended
the
comment
period
for
10
additional
days.
However,
given
the
significance
of
the
proposed
permit,
NAHB
feels
that
the
public
has
not
been
given
adequate
time
to
provide
meaningful
comments
to
the
proposal
and
is
concerned
that
EPA
will
make
revisions
hastily
given
the
deadlines
under
which
EPA
must
finalize
the
permit.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
public
was
not
provided
with
adequate
time
for
review
and
comment.
In
finalizing
the
CGP,
EPA
gave
full
consideration
to
all
comments
received
during
the
comment
period.
EPA's
decision
to
not
finalize
the
CGP
prior
to
the
March
10,
2003
deadline
to
submit
applications
reflects
the
Agency's
desire
to
carefully
consider
public
comments
and
issue
a
permit
reflective
of
those
comments.
1057
2
Public
Notice
of
Draft
Permit
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
13
499
On
February
3,
2003,
the
Confederated
Salish
and
Kootenai
Tribes
(
Tribes)
submitted
a
request
for
an
extension
until
February
20,
2003,
for
comments
on
the
Docket
No.
OW­
2002­
0055
General
Construction
Permit
for
Storm
Water
Discharges.
The
Tribes
included
in
the
request
a
discussion
of
the
reasons
and
justification
for
the
additional
comment
time
requested.
The
Tribes
were
recently
advised
of
the
extension
of
the
comment
period
on
Docket
OW­
2002­

0055
until
February
13,
2003,
but
have
not
received
a
response
to
their
request
for
an
extension
until
February
20th.
The
Tribes
will
need
until
February
20,

2003,
to
determine
if
the
Tribes
will
have
substantive
comments
on
the
General
Storm
Water
Permit.
We
are
still
evaluating
the
effects
of
the
proposed
permit
on
Tribal
Departments
and
Programs.
If
the
Tribes
determine
as
a
result
of
these
Evaluations
that
they
will
need
to
develop
such
comments,
they
will
be
submitted
to
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2002­
0055
by
February
20,
2002.
EPA
believes
that
fair
notice
was
given
on
the
draft
construction
general
permit
and
did,
in
fact,
extend
the
comment
period
for
an
additional
ten
days.
EPA
received
no
advanced
notice
from
the
commenter
about
their
request
to
extend
the
comment
period
until
the
actual
due
date
for
comments.
1074
13
JRF1
We
suggest
that
the
following
language
is
inserted
as
a
new
Subpart
in
PART
2:
AUTHORIZATION
FOR
DISCHARGES
OF
STORM
WATER
FROM
CONSTRUCTION
SITES
as
follows:
2.5.
Public
Participation
in
NOI
Process
­
The
public's
opportunity
to
comment
pursuant
to
33
USC
1342(
a)(
1)
was
fulfilled
by
the
public
comment
period
which
began
December
20,
2002,
and
ended
February
13,
2003.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
assertion
that
the
public's
opportunity
to
comment
occurs
during
the
general
permit
issuance
process
but
the
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenters
request
to
include
that
language
in
the
permit.

NPDES
permits
are
written
to
address
specific
requirements
applicable
to
the
permittees
covered
by
the
permit.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
permits
should
include
specific
requirements
that
apply
to
others
who
are
not
the
permittee
or
the
permitting
authority.
2004
3
