Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0123
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2020-05-13T04:00Z

Amendments to Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions From True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural
Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Proposed Rule
84 FR 33715, July 15, 2019
 

Response to Comments 

                                       
                               Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations	iii
1.0	Introduction	1
1.1	Background	1
1.2	The Commenters	1
1.3	Organization of This Document	1
2.0	Comments in Favor of the Proposed Amendments	4
2.1	Proposal Will Streamline Requirements Without Removing Environmental Protections	4
2.2	Support for Clarification of Written Notice Requirement and  Part 1 Form Submittal Time	7
2.3	General Support	8
3.0	Comment Opposed to the Proposed Amendments	9
3.1	Proposal Removes Critical Protections from Oil and Gas Emissions	9
3.2	Methane Regulations Should Not Be Relaxed	10
3.3	Environmental Regulations Should Not Be Relaxed	11
4.0	Requests for Clarification	12
4.1	Clarify EPA Regional Office Review Requirements	12
4.2	Clarify Scope of the FIP's Screening Requirements for Protected Resources	14
5.0	Miscellaneous Comments	15
5.1	A Source's Reliance on the FIP Does Not Trigger ESA or NHPA Review	15
5.2	Recommendation to Allow Construction to Begin After 30- or 15-Day Deadlines if Notification of Determination is Not Received	15
6.0	Comments Incorrectly Submitted to the Docket for This Rulemaking	16

                                       
Acronyms and Abbreviations
                                       
ANPR
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
API
American Petroleum Institute 
CAA
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401  -  7671q)
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FIP
Federal Implementation Plan
LDAR
Leak detection and repair
MACT
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NOx
Nitrogen oxides
O&NG
Oil and natural gas
P1F
Part 1 form
PM2.5
Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
PM10
Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers
VOC
Volatile organic compound

Introduction	
Background 

	On July 15, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or "we") proposed a rulemaking titled Amendments to Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions From True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. The proposed amendments would revise the Federal Minor New Source Review (NSR) Program in Indian Country and the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas
Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector (National O&NG FIP). The amendments would allow for concurrent submission of two sets of documents: The Part 1 Registration Form (Part 1 Form) to register under the National O&NG FIP and documentation of completed screening procedures for the evaluation of potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and historic properties. The proposal would also clarify the 30-day period before construction may begin, clarify that written notification may include email, and correct incorrect citations and cross references.

	This Response to Comments (RTC) summarizes the public comments on the proposed rule and provides responses to those comments. 
The Commenters 
	A total of 23 comments were received on the proposed rulemaking. The comments can be broken down by general type as follows: 14 from anonymous commenters, 3 from tribes, 3 from industries and industry associations, 2 from individuals, and 1 from an environmental advocacy group. The commenters are listed at the end of this section. 
Organization of This Document
	After this introductory section, this document includes five additional sections. These sections are as follows:

 Section 2  -  Comments in favor of the proposed amendments
 Section 3  -  Comments opposed to the proposed amendments
 Section 4  -  Requests for clarification
 Section 5  -  Miscellaneous comments
 Section 6  -  Comments not responsive to this rulemaking

                              LIST OF COMMENTERS
                                       
                                 Document Id a
                        Commenter Name and Organization
                               Type of Commenter
                                     Notes
                                     0099
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0100
Mihaela Obreja
                                  Individual

                                     0101
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous
Duplicate of 0099
                                     0102
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0103
Christine Sage, Southern Ute Indian Tribe
                                     Tribe

                                     0104
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0105
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0106
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0107
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0108
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0109
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous
Campaign letter, nearly identical to comment -0110 and 0114
                                     0110
Shawna Murdock
                                  Individual
Campaign letter, nearly identical to comment -0109 and 0114
                                     0111
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0112
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0113
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0114
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous
Campaign letter, nearly identical to comment -0109 and 0110
                                     0115
Douglas Jordan, Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. on behalf of its subsidiary, Newfield Exploration Company (Encana)
                                   Industry

                                     0116
Anonymous public comment
                                   Anonymous

                                     0117
Shannon F. Wheeler, Nez Perce Tribe
                                     Tribe

                                     0118
Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (API)
                             Industry association

                                     0119
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
                                     Tribe

                                     0120
Joletta Bird Bear, Ft. Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights
                         Environmental advocacy group

                                     0121
Kathleen M. Sgamma, President, Western Energy Alliance, and Rikki Hrenko-Browning, President, Utah Petroleum Association (UPA)
                             Industry association

[a] Document ID identifies written comments found in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606 by document number.

Comments in Favor of the Proposed Amendments
Proposal Will Streamline Requirements Without Removing Environmental Protections

Comments:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0102 - Anonymous public comment
In this administrations goal to reduce the time it takes for permitting etc., this may be the best example of it. The ability of one to put in the two requests simultaneously will save time. The review time has not changed for either, but they have removed the 30 day wait to submit the 2nd. I see no issue with being able to submit both at once.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0099 and 0101 (duplicate comment) - Anonymous public comment
I agree with the changes in the amendment regarding the simultaneous assessment related to protected resources and submission of the Part 1 Form. This proposed amendment has shortened the processing time without changing the original intention of the law, that is, protecting resources from over-exploitation, the living conditions of species will not deteriorate, and air quality will not be affected. On the one hand, it respects the ecological environment that protects the natural areas, and on the other hand, it also facilitates commercial development.

Now that the proposed amendment suggests starting the first two steps, assessment and submitting of P1F, at the same time. I think there was is substantial change in the procedure, but it saves time and improved efficiency due to the processes are dealt with at the same time. And the EPA still has the power to withhold approval to the construction at any time prior the fulfilment of the requirements. Therefore, I support this amendment.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0119 - Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
As a sovereign government, the Tribe takes an active role in the development, regulation, and administration of its resources, but is often limited in its effectiveness by the bureaucracy of federal agency oversight. The federal permitting process has continually been the biggest hurdle facing developers on the Reservation. Development on the Reservation requires 10 times more permits than off -reservation development. The Tribe has repeatedly called on Congress and federal agencies to address these issues of bureaucratic delay. Oil and gas companies have altered operational plans, often to the detriment of the Tribe's oil and gas program, due to the unpredictability of the federal permitting process, as a consequence of delays and insufficient staff and support for permits. 

The Tribe supports these amendments that would reduce the timeline between submission of documents by producers and construction. The proposed amendments to the National O&NG FIP would streamline an unnecessarily lengthy screening procedures. When President Trump met with tribal leaders in late June of 2017, he encouraged tribal leaders to continue to work towards streamlining regulations that would promote energy development and support this administration's goal of improving domestic energy. The proposed rule supports this goal and will improve energy development without removing any environmental protections or regulations. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0118  -  Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (API)
API supports the proposed amendments to the FIP's provisions regarding pre-project notifications and screening for a project's impacts on protected resources under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"). Although API believes that implementation of the FIP by individual sources should not trigger any ESA or NHPA review, the Proposal's approach nonetheless improves upon the current rule by reducing costly and unnecessary administrative delays while continuing to protect health and the environment. 

Notwithstanding API's objections to the FIP's ESA and NHPA review requirements, API supports the Agency's proposed amendments to those requirements. While these amendments will not entirely relieve the burdens of compliance with the FIP's screening requirements, they will reduce the unnecessary administrative delay that those requirements currently impose. In its current form, the FIP prohibits a source owner or operator from submitting the Part 1 Registration Form for a proposed source or modification until EPA confirms by letter that the ESA and NHPA screening requirements have been satisfactorily completed. 40 C.F.R. § 49.104(a)(2). The purpose of this limitation seems to be to ensure that construction does not commence until the screening process for protected resources is complete. However, this limitation is not necessary to achieve EPA's purpose, and it requires the source owner or operator to endure two separate and redundant 30-day waiting periods before beginning construction. The Proposal would allow a source owner or operator to submit its Part 1 Registration Form together with its documentation of the completed ESA and NHPA screening procedures. 81 Fed. Reg. at 33,721, Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 49.104(a)(2). It would also explicitly provide that the source may not begin construction under this FIP until the following two conditions are met: (1) At least 30 days has passed from the date the Part 1 Registration Form was submitted, and (2) the EPA Regional Office has provided this notification [that the source has adequately completed the screening procedures]. Id., Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 49.104(a)(2)(B)(ii). 

These changes advance EPA's overall goal of providing a streamlined permitting process that adequately protects health and the environment. By allowing a source to submit its screening documentation and Part 1 form together, EPA would allow the 30-day waiting periods associated with each requirement to run concurrently, thus eliminating unnecessary delay in the permit process. At the same time, the two explicit conditions laid out at § 49.104(a)(2)(B)(ii) ensure the goals of both the registration and screening requirements will be met. A source or modification cannot begin construction until 30 days have elapsed from submission of its Part 1 form, even if the screening process is completed early. And it cannot begin construction until EPA gives notification that the screening procedures have been satisfied (which may include submission of additional materials if EPA deems the initial documentation inadequate), even if 30 days have elapsed since the Part 1 form was submitted.  

These changes also bring the FIP's procedures for sources that were not previously assessed by other agencies for ESA or NHPA impacts into alignment with those for sources that were previously assessed. Where another agency has already completed review under these statutes for the source or modification, the FIP allows the source to submit documentation of that prior review together with its Part 1 Registration Form. 40 C.F.R. § 49.104(a)(1). Thus, for those projects EPA's evaluation of whether the documentation is adequate runs concurrently with the Part 1 form's 30-day period. It makes logical sense for the same process to apply where a source owner or operator performs its own screening. 
 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0115 - Douglas Jordan; Manager, Air Compliance, Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. on behalf of its subsidiary, Newfield Exploration Company (Encana)
We support the proposed amendments to the FIP's provisions regarding pre-project notifications and screening for a project's impacts on protected resources under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA") as well as clarification on the submittal timeline for the Part 1 application. We see these provisions as further streamlining the FIP process by reducing the current 60-day timeframe to a 30-day timeframe. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0103  -  Christine Sage, Southern Ute Indian Tribe
The Tribe supports the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 49.104, allowing (1) simultaneous submittal of Part I Forms and screening procedures documentation, (2) clarifying language of when construction may begin after form submittal, and (3) clarifying written notification by EPA. The Tribe concurs that proposed changes will further streamline the approval processes associated with the authorization of the construction of true minor sources located in Indian Country. Further, the Tribe understands and agrees that the proposed amendments will not lessen environmental protection in tribal communities, nor will it create increases in operational costs to facility owners.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0121  -  Kathleen M. Sgamma, President, Western Energy Alliance, and Rikki Hrenko-Browning, President, Utah Petroleum Association (UPA)

The proposed changes to the National Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan (National FIP) increase regulatory certainty for developing oil and natural gas in Indian country, thereby encouraging responsible development and enhancing economic opportunities for tribes. Western Energy Alliance (the Alliance) and Utah Petroleum Association (UPA) strongly support EPA's proposed amendments to make registering for air permits in Indian Country easier and more streamlined. 

We support the changes proposed in the FIP Amendments. Many of our members operate in Indian country and have come to rely on the current permitting approach that is available through the National FIP. The National FIP reduces the need for lengthy site-specific permits while facilitating continued responsible development in Indian country. The proposed targeted fixes would fix three elements, thereby increasing the efficacy of the National FIP. 

[W]e support EPA's decision to amend the National FIP to remove the 30-day waiting period between submission of the Part 1 permit application and the screening procedures for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance. We agree with EPA's assessment that the change will expedite the preconstruction permitting process and that the waiting period is an unnecessary delay.

Response:
We agree with the commenters that concurrent submission of the Part 1 Form and documentation of protected resources screening procedures may streamline the process for sources subject to the National O&NG FIP. In addition, there have been no changes to the environmental protections of the rule and, under the revised provisions that allow concurrent submission, the EPA still must review and approve the screening procedures documentation before construction or modification can begin, all of which ensures that threatened or endangered species, historic properties, and the environment will continue to be protected as under the existing rule.

Support for Clarification of Written Notice Requirement and 
Part 1 Form Submittal Time 

Comments:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0118 -  Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA proposes to clarify that "written notice" of a source's satisfactory completion of the screening procedures is not limited to a letter and may "be in an electronic format and transmitted via email (e.g. a signed .pdf document)." 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,719. To the extent that affirmative notice of EPA's finding of completeness is necessary, providing notification via electronic means makes sense as a way to speed the permitting process. EPA also proposes to clarify that the Part 1 form need not be submitted exactly 30 days before beginning construction. Id. This change is reasonable because it reflects EPA's original intent in the FIP and avoids penalizing sources for filing more than 30 days in advance of beginning construction. 
 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0115 - Douglas Jordan; Manager, Air Compliance, Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. on behalf of its subsidiary, Newfield Exploration Company (Encana)
We also support the rule revision which allows submittal of the Part 1 application electronically as well as clarifying that the Part 1 application may be submitted 30-days or more prior to construction.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0121  -  Kathleen M. Sgamma, President, Western Energy Alliance, and Rikki Hrenko-Browning, President, Utah Petroleum Association (UPA)

[W]e support EPA's clarification of the time period needed to submit the application before commencing construction. As EPA stated in the proposal, the current language implies that any application would need to be submitted exactly 30 days before construction begins. That is an unreasonable requirement since construction schedules often change due to weather, equipment failures, or other unforeseen circumstances. The proposed language that allows the application to be submitted at least 30 days before construction is a fix that reflects the realities of construction scheduling. 

[T]he agency's proposed language to allow email instead of just written determinations that the ESA and NHPA screening procedures are satisfactory completed is a reasonable change that reflects modern business and standard communications practices. Since the National FIP registration application can be submitted through email, it is consistent to communicate the status of the application through email as well.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0103  -  Christine Sage, Southern Ute Indian Tribe
The Tribe supports the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 49.104, ... (2) clarifying language of when construction may begin after form submittal, and (3) clarifying written notification by EPA. The Tribe concurs that proposed changes will further streamline the approval processes associated with the authorization of the construction of true minor sources located in Indian Country. Further, the Tribe understands and agrees that the proposed amendments will not lessen environmental protection in tribal communities, nor will it create increases in operational costs to facility owners.

Response:
We agree with the commenters that clarifying that (1) Part 1 Forms must be submitted at least, rather than exactly, 30 days in advance of construction or modification of the source and (2) EPA notification of satisfactory completion of the screening procedures may be sent by email is consistent with the EPA's intentions and helps streamline the process without lessening the environmental protections of the program.

General Support 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0117 - Shannon F. Wheeler, Chairman, Tribal Executive Committee, Nez Perce Tribe
The Tribe has no objection to allowing an owner/operator to submit the Part 1 Form concurrent with their screening procedures documentation for protected resources, provided that the EPA Regional Office still has the responsibility to review and determine the adequacy of the screening procedures documentation, in consultation and coordination with the affected Indian Tribe(s), and if not adequate, the source may not begin construction. 

Response:
As noted above (see Response at Section 2.1), the EPA will still be responsible for reviewing and determining the adequacy of the screening procedures documentation. It is clarified in §49.104(a)(2)(ii) that construction or modification may not begin until the source receives written notification from the EPA that the source has adequately completed the screening procedures.  In addition, The EPA proposed no changes to EPA's rules, policies, or practices concerning Tribal consultation or coordination, including in connection with the National O&NG FIP.  The issues raised by the commenter were not the subject of the proposed amendments to the National O&NG FIP and they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be addressed here. However, we note that the existing regulations at 40 CFR 49.104(a)(1) and (2) require that sources submit screening procedures documentation to the relevant tribe as well as to the EPA Regional Office, and the proposed amendments do not change these requirements. 

Comment Opposed to the Proposed Amendments
Proposal Removes Critical Protections from Oil and Gas Emissions 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0120 - Joletta Bird Bear, President, Ft. Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights
A review of oil and gas development in Indian Country shows that the EPA has not met its obligation to protect public health and welfare and has not fulfilled its trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. Many areas of Indian Country are already exceeding federal public health standards. EPA provided a table in the ANPR which shows that, among counties where Indian Country exists, six are designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, seventeen are designated as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, fifteen are designated as nonattainment for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, and twenty-one are designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 79 Fed. Reg. at 32,51011.

Furthermore, the EPA does not have an understanding of the impacts of oil and gas development on native communities in Indian Country. As EPA recognized in the initial FIP ANPR, our understanding of the oil and natural gas sectors impact on ambient air quality in Indian Country is incomplete at this time given the absence of ambient air quality monitoring in many areas of Indian Country. 79 Fed. Reg. at 32,519. There are currently no monitors for PM2.5, PM10, or Ozone within tribal boundaries on the Ft. Berthold Reservation.

As the pace of development in Indian Country quickens, the EPA should take greater caution to be intentional in their review of existing resources, their trust responsibility to our communities, and their internal processes. Indeed, EPA Region 8 which covers Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota and twenty-seven tribal nations has already received more than 6,400 registrations from existing oil and gas minor sources in Indian Country, as of 2016. Increasing the pace of application review is not the answer to an increase in development. 79 Fed. Reg. at 32,509

The people of our land and members of Ft. Berthold POWER have significant concerns with proposals which could lead to less stringent enforcement and implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), less protection of threatened and endangered species, and disregard for protected cultural resources such as historic properties. The proposed changes to the FIP would result in tying approval of the Threatened and Endangered Species and Historic Properties screening procedure documentation to approval of the Part 1 Form, reducing the time and attention provided to the review of true minor source applications. We do not consider any review which is automatically approved after a certain time period to be adequate consideration of the threatened and endangered species of this land or the cultural heritage and artifacts of our people.

For these reasons, Fort Berthold POWER opposes the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 49.104, allowing (1) simultaneous submittal of Part I Forms and screening procedures documentation, (2) clarifying language of when construction may begin after form submittal, and (3) clarifying written notification by EPA.

Speaking for those who live in an area of intense oil and gas development, this proposal to increase the pace of review for oil and gas minor sources is unnecessary and part of a larger, dangerous trend from this administration -- removing critical protections from oil and gas emissions which endanger the lives of native people living on reservations.

Response:
In general, the EPA appreciates the commenter's concerns about air quality. The EPA does not agree that the limited amendments proposed to the National O&NG FIP will have a significant adverse effect, if any, on air quality. Although the EPA maintains that there may be some administrative streamlining advantages associated with the proposed amendments, the EPA does not agree that the amendments will substantially increase the rate of oil and natural gas development or production. The proposed amendments also do not reduce or remove existing air quality protections associated with the National O&NG FIP.

As to the comments relating to minor source applications and the EPA's review of such applications, sources covered by the National O&NG FIP ordinarily are not required to submit site-specific permit applications but are required to register and comply with various stated requirements and emissions standards. There is no application, as such, for the EPA to review and the limited amendments here make no change to this basic framework. With respect to the ESA/National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) screening procedures, the National O&NG FIP continues to require review of the adequacy of the screening procedures documentation. Both in the prior National O&NG FIP, and the FIP as amended by this action, construction may not begin until the EPA provides written notification of adequate completion of the screening procedures.

Regulations on Methane or other Green House Gases Should Not Be Relaxed 

Comments:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0107 - Anonymous public comment
I write from the Central Valley, where much of the country's food is grown. Pollution, heat, and drought are threatening the crops of the Central Valley, and these factors are made worse by greenhouse-trapping gasses like methane. For the sake of this country's future food supply--on top of many, many other reasons--please do not scale back fossil fuel regulations. BP, Exxon, and Shell have made it clear that they are complying with the current standards and see their importance, and the citizens of this country deserve a government that protects them and their food supply from the catastrophic effects of leaked greenhouse gases like methane.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0108 - Anonymous public comment
As a concerned citizen I think that rolling back methane emissions it any other fossil fuel emissions is a horrible idea. I think that it will harm our planet and humans in a way that right now is unthinkable. We should be moving towards better and more efficient types of energy that don't harm our planet and can be renewable.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0111 - Anonymous public comment
I strongly oppose changing regulations around methane gas emissions. It is a harmful step that thwarts attempts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately will contribute to an acceleration of climate change challenges for our communities.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0109, 1110, 0114 (citizen campaign letters, almost verbatim the same) - Anonymous public comment
Dear Mr. Wheeler,
Your proposal to roll back regulation of one of the most potent green house gases in the face of catastrophic climate change is not only ironic but horribly irresponsible. It is as if you do not know what your acronym stands for. Have you forgotten Protection is a part of your agencies name? Methane emissions from oil and gas wells is equivalent to the emissions of 69 million vehicles according to a Wall Street journal analysis. Even executives from BP, EXXON and royal dutch shell are not in favor of loosening methane regulations as it will damage their messaging regarding the clean nature of natural gas. Please do your job and actually work to protect the environment. The lives of your children and your childrens children literally depend upon your work. It is time to put long term viability of our species before short term profits of small oil and gas companies. Even if they are big political donors!

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0105 - Anonymous public comment
We need to be saving the earth, not destroying it. Let's capture methane and reduce the warming of the atmosphere. Let's pay now and not leave the problem for our grandchildren.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0112 - Anonymous public comment
I am from a small coal town in southern West Virginia. I have witnessed firsthand, what rolling back regulations will do to the environment and the immediate communities. The industries you are attempting to help out only wish to exploit, extract and capitalize. The cancers, drug addictions, crime, and environmental destruction allowed to enter West Virginia in the name of economy, jobs and money is appalling. You disgust me. Why on Earth would you propose to roll back regulations on one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases, exacerbating global warming? You're the Environmental Protection Agency, not the Environmental Destruction Agency. Stop using your positions to enrich yourselves and your friends. The only green you seem to care about is the color of money. The survival of the planet literally depends on our actions now. How dare you attempt to roll back regulations which protect the environment. You are an irresponsible administration, and a true stain on the history of the world. Do not rollback these regulations.

Response:
The proposed amendments to the National O&NG FIP do not roll back, relax, or in any way change any requirements related to methane or other greenhouse gas emissions. The commenters may be mistaken about the nature of the proposed changes to the National O&NG FIP. The proposed changes simply allow concurrent submission of information to the EPA; clarify what may constitute written notification of completion of screening procedures; and clarify the timeframe for submission of information to the EPA.
Environmental Regulations Should Not Be Relaxed 

Comments:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0106 - Anonymous public comment
I recommend not amending, in order to better protect the environment and people.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0104 - Anonymous public comment
As conscientious human beings we should be tightening regulations on emissions and endangered species, not loosening restrictions as this proposes. We are living in a time where making money comes before just about everything else. If this bill's intent is to simplify bureaucratic red tape, then why not find another way to simplify that process without removing rules that help to ensure cleaner air and protections for animals that are endangered due to our collective human activities.

Sometimes the slow process of the government is beneficial, because it helps to ensure that business and industry do not get a free pass to do whatever they want whenever they want, even when there may be detrimental consequences as a result. This is the case here. We must protect our land, air, and water if we intend to have a habitable world to hand off to our children and our childrens' children.

Response: 
We believe these amendments streamline and clarify the preconstruction/pre modification process without removing any protections for threatened and endangered species, historic properties, human health, or the environment. The EPA Regional Offices still have the opportunity to review the screening procedures documentation. This approach may expedite the preconstruction permitting process, without any change in environmental protections.
Requests for Clarification
Clarify EPA Regional Office Review Requirements 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0117 - Shannon F. Wheeler, Chairman, Tribal Executive Committee, Nez Perce Tribe
In the case where an owner/operator submits an assessment conducted by another agency (not PA) as "documentation of protected resources review" evaluating the potential impacts of the specific oil and gas activity on threatened and endangered species and historic properties (protected resources), it is not clear if the EPA Regional Office has the same responsibility for an adequacy review and determination as in the case where the owner/operator conducts the protected resources review. The Tribe requests that EPA clearly state in the amendments to the National Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that in the case where an owner/operator submits an assessment conducted by another agency in lieu of submitting screening procedures documentation conducted by the owner/operator, the EPA Regional Office still has the responsibility to review and determine the adequacy of the screening procedures documentation, and if not adequate, the source may not begin construction. 

Response:
The EPA did not propose any changes to 40 C.F.R. § 49.104(a)(1), which relates to the procedure where there has been prior ESA/NHPA screening or assessment by another federal agency.  The comment is, therefore, outside the scope of the current rulemaking. Accordingly, it will not be addressed at this time. 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0117 - Shannon F. Wheeler, Chairman, Tribal Executive Committee, Nez Perce Tribe
EPA has a responsibility to conduct consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments as per EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes. As such, when the EPA Regional Office undertakes its adequacy review of the submitted protected resources screening documentation (whether generated by the owner/operator or by another agency), as well as when the owner/operator submits the Part 1 Form to register applicability under the FIP, the EPA Regional Office must consult and coordinate with the affected Indian Tribe(s) whose resources may be impacted by the source's potential operations. 

The Nez Perce Tribe recommends the EPA Regional Office notify the affected Indian Tribe(s) 
immediately upon the EPA's receipt of the Part 1 Form and/or the screening documentation. In many cases, the affected Indian Tribe(s) has governmental programs with substantial expertise regarding screening documentation review and adequacy, such as a Historic Preservation Officer and Departments of Cultural Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife, Water, Air Quality, and Forestry. Because the EPA Regional Office must consult and coordinate with the affected Indian Tribe(s) regarding the EPA Regional Office's review and determination of adequacy of the protected resources screening documentation, and because that consultation and coordination can potentially take significant time, the earlier the notification, the better.

Response:
The EPA proposed no changes to the EPA's rules, policies, or practices concerning Tribal consultation or coordination, including in connection with the National O&NG FIP. The issues raised by the commenter were not the subject of the proposed amendments to the National O&NG FIP and they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be addressed here. However, we note that the existing regulations at 40 CFR 49.104(a)(1) and (2) require that sources submit screening procedures documentation to the relevant tribe as well as to the EPA Regional Office, and the proposed amendments do not change these requirements. 

Clarify Scope of the FIP's Screening Requirements for Protected Resources 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0118  -  Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (API)
In order to further improve implementation of the FIP and promote efficiency in permitting, API requests clarification on the scope of the FIP's screening requirements for protected resources. There are some instances in which equipment at oil and gas sources (e.g., an engine) may be replaced that should not warrant revision of an existing screening assessment. Specifically, EPA should clarify that no ESA or NHPA screening assessment is required for a project involving replacement of equipment where a prior screening assessment (whether performed under § 49.104(a)(1) or (a)(2)) has already sufficiently considered the new equipment or the equipment configuration, even if the replacement is subject to minor NSR permitting (i.e., even if the replacement is a change that results in a minor emissions increase). 

Requiring submission of a new screening assessment would not provide any benefit where EPA has already been made sufficiently aware of that engine configuration in a previous assessment. Any impact of such equipment on endangered species and historic resources is primarily -- perhaps even exclusively -- associated with the physical disturbance of the land and the size of the equipment. That impact would have already been thoroughly assessed when the replaced equipment was permitted, and the replacement would result in no new such impacts. As a practical matter, any marginal change in a minor source's emissions resulting from simple equipment replacement is highly unlikely to change the source's impacts on endangered species or historic properties. 

Response:
This issue was not a subject of the proposed amendments to the National O&NG FIP and is, therefore, outside the scope of the current rulemaking. Accordingly, it will not be addressed at this time.

Miscellaneous Comments
A Source's Reliance on the FIP Does Not Trigger ESA or NHPA Review 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0118  -  Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (API)
API maintains that the FIP's requirements for source-by-source ESA and NHPA screening are unlawful. Review under those statutes is only triggered by certain agency actions. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a) (requiring ESA review for action "authorized, funded, or carried out by" agency); 16 U.S.C. § 470f (requiring NHPA review for federal or federally-licensed "undertakings"). As EPA itself conceded in the final FIP, "separate coverage under the FIP does not constitute an action that triggers ESA/NHPA." 81 Fed. Reg. at 35,961. Thus, by the Agency's own admission, there is no need or justification for imposing ESA or NHPA review requirements when a source avails itself of the FIP. Indeed, the FIP's application to a particular proposed source or modification is no different from the implementation of countless other CAA regulations that do not require ESA or NHPA review each time they are applied to a particular source. Like a MACT standard or the Subpart OOOO New Source Performance Standards, the FIP applies directly to affected sources. There is no requirement for case-specific decision-making or source-by-source authorization of construction. Thus, there is no Agency decision to be informed by ESA or NHPA review, and there is no rational basis for EPA to require these reviews under the FIP. For this reason, API believes the Agency should remove the FIP's requirements for source-by-source ESA and NHPA review. 

Response:
This issue was not a subject of the proposed amendments to the National O&NG FIP and is, therefore, outside the scope of the current rulemaking. Accordingly, it will not be addressed at this time. Further, we note that this issue was raised during the rulemaking that established the National O&NG FIP, and we addressed it at that time in the preamble to the final rule (81 FR 35960, Comments/Responses Nos. 10 and 12, June 3, 2016).

Recommendation to Allow Construction to Begin After 30- or 15-Day Deadlines if Notification of Determination is Not Received 

Comment:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0118  -  Matt Todd, American Petroleum Institute (API)
API recommends certain additional changes to the ESA and NHPA screening procedures to better serve the Agency's purpose in the FIP of providing a "streamlined" approach to permitting with "unambiguous" requirements. The FIP currently provides that "[w]ithin 30 days of receipt" of a source's screening documentation, EPA "must" respond with a determination either that it is satisfactory or that more information is needed. 40 C.F.R. § 49.104(a)(2)(i). If the latter occurs, once the source addresses any deficiencies, EPA has 15 additional days to make a determination. Id. Under both the current FIP and the Proposal, however, a source cannot begin construction without receiving notice from EPA that it has adequately completed the screening procedures. Id. § 49.104(a)(2)(ii). These provisions are contradictory: if EPA must make a determination within the 30- and 15-day deadlines, the source should not be left in limbo and prohibited from beginning construction indefinitely where EPA does not provide notice of a determination within these mandatory deadlines. Accordingly, API recommends amending the FIP to provide that if a source owner does not receive a determination from the EPA Regional Office within 30 days after EPA receives its screening documentation (or within 15 days after submission of a revised screening documentation after an initial finding of inadequacy), the source owner may proceed with construction or modification as if it had received notification of adequate completion. 

Response:
The comment urges that, above and beyond the amendments EPA has proposed, EPA propose to make additional changes to the National O&NG FIP.  The comment is outside the scope of the current rulemaking and will not be further addressed, here.
Comments Not Pertinent to This Rulemaking

Comments:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0113 - Anonymous public comment
I do not support any flair off or burning of excess gases. I do support a re-capture on excess gas rule.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0116 - Anonymous public comment
I recommend this amendment not be implemented in order to protect air quality. I recommend extending the time to report to five years, this would allow time to properly determine whether air quality would be adversely affected.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606-0100 - Mihaela Obreja 
This comment is regarding the decision taken on May 2, 2019, by EPA Administrator to sign a final rule extending the geographic coverage of the National O&NG FIP to the Indian country portion of the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area (i.e., the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, referred in B. National O&NG FIP section).

It is clear from this proposal that EPA tries to eliminate the administrative burden of processing hundreds of true minor source permits within a short time frame without the use of a streamlined process, and I agree with this proposal. On the other hand, there are environmental NGOs that oppose this proposal citing the already existing minimal unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone in the Uintah Basin i.e. EDF (environmental defense fund).

I believe that the streamlining of the application process is a separate issue, already proven by EPA in studies that show there would be no environmental impact, just by this decision alone.
The unhealthy levels of pollution should be tackled in a separate proposal, that is already accepted at state and federal level (https://deq.utah.gov/communication/news/ozone-marginal-nonattainment-areas-utah) and steps are already taken at state level: The Air Quality Board enacted 14 rules this past year to limit the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), a precursor to the formation of ozone. The upcoming production and sale of Tier 3 fuels in Utah will significantly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), another ozone precursor. The new permit-by-rule for small oil and gas operators in the Uinta Basin and emission-control requirements for oil and gas storage tanks, dehydrators, VOC-control devices, and Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) will help reduce emissions from oil and gas operations in the Uinta Basin.

The positive business impact of this proposal is already recognized and supported by tribal organizations, like Ute Tribal Business Committee.

Response:
These comments are outside the scope of the proposed National O&NG FIP amendments and will not be further addressed, here.