UTE INDIAN TRIBE P. 0. Box 190 Fort Duche n e Utah 84026 Phone (435) 722-5141 • Fax (435) 722-5072

Government-to-Government Consultation onAdvanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on July 18, 2014 The Ute Indian Tribe is committed to the sustainable and responsible development of mineral resources.
• Development is necessary to enable the Tribe to realize the full potential ofits resources and achieve economic self-sufficiency. • The Tribe is also concerned with protecting the air quality in the Uintah Basin. • The Indian Country Minor NSR Program should balance the need to regulate energy producers in Indian Country with ensuring that Tribes can continue to develop their resources. • This solution should give operators on Tribal lands the same fast permitting turnaround times as they experience on state lands. • Any program should also respecttribal sovereignty and self-determination. • Because Tribes are recognized by EPA as a state, Tribes should be afforded that same treatment. The Ute Indian Tribe has used energy production to improve the lives and well being ofits members through the revenues generated from such development.

• Regulatory obstacles limit development on the Reservation. • These obstacles prevent the Tribe from achieving the level of governmental efficiency and effectiveness necessary for the Tribe to fully benefitfrom its resources. • Ensuring that EPA balances the needs for environmental protection with Tribal concerns is importantfor energyproducing tribes thatrelyheavilyupon energyproduction. • Tribes don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage with states. Tribes want to level the playing field. • Tribes don't want the Minor NSR Program to impose unduly burdensome regulations on operators that will cause arace to fee land. The Federal Government must ensure that it honors its trust obligations to the Tribe and respect tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

• Tribes need to retain control and responsibility of their own energy development and other opportunities as governments and landowners.

1___ _ _ _**__, T.._.h""eL-L-F.ederaLGoy_emmenLmusLensure--that---it-mggts-it-s** **tmst eblig-atien** **te 1'fi-bes--and** **----'** allows the continued development oftribal resources. • Ifthe Program is too strict, tribes will be unable to compete with states and will lose the ability to develop trust resources. • Federal law and Indian self-determination prevents Indian lands from being treated as public lands. • Regulatory hurdles have a direct and negative impact on the development ofthe Tribe's resources. • Burdensomeregulations will cause operators to divert their capital offthe Reservation. • IfOperators are forced to leave the Reservation for lands outside ofEPA'sjurisdiction, it could take several years before they reinvest on the Reservation. • IfOperators leave the Reservation, the Tribe's economy will suffer greatly as itwill lose out on millions ofdollars in royalties, bonuses, taxes and throughputfees. 

### TheIndian CountryMinorNSR Programmustprotectairquality in the UintahBasin.

• EPA must address ozone levels while also allowing for economic growth and the responsible development ofenergy resources in the Uintah Basin
. • Unique geologic features of the Uintah Basin make it susceptible to the formation of winter ozone levels during certain conditions. • O&G Emissions are contributing to air quality degradation throughout the Uintah Basin. • Any solution mustbalance new growth by mitigating the potential for adverse air quality impacts from overall increases inemissions. 

### GeneralPermits would causeunduedelays in thedevelopmentofTribalminerals.

• General permits will delay oil and gas operations and incentivize companies to seek easier and fasterpermitting requirements offTribal lands. • General permits will cause unnecessary delays because they require preconstruction permits. • General permits are also subject to a public notice and comment period, which will also cause delays. • Enabling the public to challenge any particular source receiving coverage is unnecessary and will consume valuableEPA resources. • A general permit will only apply to new and modified oil and natural gas facilities and will not address existing sources. 

### APermit-By-Ruleis preferableto a General Permit.

• A permit-by-rule would benefit Tribes and operators through faster permit times as it preauthorizes construction. • This promotes reliability by allowing companies to plan for drilling schedules in advance. • It also offers both predictability and certainty, allowing companies to proceed with and includeTribal lands in their drilling schedules.
2**..__It-also uses** **less agenG-y--FesGur~-as---ths-operateF--_previde-s-netiee--that** **it-meet-s-alJ--- ---**  eligibilitycriteriafor coverageby the permit-by-rule. • The permitting process is faster under a permit-by-rule because the public may only objectthroughjudicial challenge. • As a result of the faster process, Tribes will benefit through continued investment on Tribal lands and allowing the Tribe to maximize the benefits ofits natural resources. A Federal Implementation Plan is also preferable to a General Permit.

• A FIP could fast-track the approval permit process as it avoids the need pre-construction approval and other undue delays in the development ofTribal minerals. • Unlike other permitting mechanisms, public comment will not disrupt the permitting process under a PIP. • While a PIP should·establish permitting requirements for new sources, it could also include certain existing sources. • Neither a general permitnor a permit-by-rule would allow EPAto regulate existing O&G Emissions. • If a PIP is used, it must be flexible regarding existing sources and should not cover all existing sources as continued developmentis essential in the Uintah Basin. • Any authorization mechanism should not require retroactive controls or otherwise place overwhelminglyburdensomerequirements on existing sources. • This flexibility can balance continued development in the Uintah Basin with air quality protections. The Tribe wants the EPA to level the playingfield between Indian and non-Indian lands.

• The Tribe would like to level the playing field between economic inequities associated with on-reservation versus off-reservation energy development that have resulted from the need for shorterpermitting andfacility approvals in Indian Country. • State lands in the development of oil and gas resources where they are subject to less stringent minor source permitting requirements that impose more effective and reasonable controls to regulate emissions from the samefacilities. • The Indian Country Minor NSR Rule should not cause operators to race to fee lands and non-Indian lands. • The Ute Indian Tribe has already seen operators move off the reservation to lands regulated by the states, which have more robust rules allowing the issuance of synthetic minorpermits to sources that want to begin construction and avoid the PSD process. • How can EPA guarantee thatIndian country will be placed on a "levelplaying field" with federal, state, fee lands and even between tribes located in differentregions?

3**-------£E!dP--rA~camwt--ilwlude---a-setbac-k---RquiFement-in---the-lndian--(;euntr-y-MinoF-NSR----Progmm----­** 

### because EPA does nothavejurisdictionover Triballand.

• A setback requirement is inappropriate because EPA does not have jurisdiction over Tribal surface. • EPA should defer to the Tribes regarding setback requirements as setbacks have nothing to do with air quality and EPA does nothave surface authority. • Tribes have passed zoning laws for oil and gas facilities and have setback provisions in oil and gas exploration and development agreements orleases. • Attempting to regulate Tribal surface would be an overreach of EPA authority and violate Tribal sovereignty.

4