Notice
of
Intent
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
6
54
Section
2.1,
item
9:
EPA
requests
the
project
start
and
completion
dates.
We
request
that
you
clarify
the
completion
date
e.
g.
are
your
referring
to
actual
completion
of
construction
activities,
completion
of
temporary
stabilization,
or
final
stabilization.
EPA
has
clarified
that
completion
of
construction
activity
is
to
be
upon
final
stabilization
(
i.
e.,
when
permit
coverage
is
no
longer
necessary
for
construction
activity).
1028
and
1024
6
127
Part
8.12.
A:
If
the
size
(
acreage)
of
a
construction
project
significantly
changes
(
e.
g.,
from
Small
Construction
to
Large
Construction)
after
submission
of
the
NOI,
what
kind
of
notification
to
EPA
is
required?
EPA
has
clarified
in
the
fact
sheet
that
in
certain
instances,
the
operator
is
required
to
notify
(
i.
e.,
submit
a
new
NOI)
EPA
that
the
size
of
the
construction
project
has
changed
significantly.
EPA
has
found
that
in
many
instances,

operators
that
increase
the
size
of
their
project
submit
a
new
NOI
as
an
additional
NOI,
noting
a
new
name
(
e.
g.,
Phase
2)
for
that
part
of
the
project.
1077
6
287
We
support
removing
the
requirement
to
submit
a
NOI
for
construction
sites
48
hours
prior
to
start
of
construction
which
reduces
burden
on
the
industry.
As
a
result
of
consultation
with
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services,
EPA
has
changed
the
NOI
submission
requirement
to
be
at
least
7
days
in
advance
of
commencement
of
construction
activity.
As
discussed
elsewhere,
the
fact
that
EPA
is
changing
who
needs
permit
coverage
(
i.
e.,
developers,
land
owners,
etc.),
the
burden
associated
with
a
7
day
review
timeframe
in
advance
of
permit
coverage
should
not
be
as
great
of
a
concern.
1002
and
1006
6
291
Section
2.1,
item
5:
In
Oklahoma,
there
are
over
30
recognized
tribes.
Identification
of
specific
Indian
Country
Land
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible
to
identify.
In
many
instances,
the
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
and
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
do
not
know
where
all
these
lands
are
located.
We
request
that
this
be
eliminated
from
the
NOI
until
this
issue
can
be
addressed
to
streamline
the
process
for
operators.
We
have
asked
the
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
and
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
for
maps
or
legal
descriptions­
for
all
their
lands
in
Oklahoma.
They
informed
us
that
they
did
not
have
the
information.
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenter's
concerns
but
the
Agency
believes
that
this
information
is
critical
to
determine
permit
eligibility
and
as
such,
has
opted
to
keep
this
element
in
the
NOI.
EPA
has
clarified
that
the
requirement
is
to
collect
information
necessary
to
determine
whether
the
activities
are
covered
by
EPA
or
the
State.
1028
and
1024
1
Notice
of
Intent
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
6
293
Section
2.2.
D.,
Change
in
Operator:
The
language
in
item
D
and
in
Section
8.12.
C
does
not
correspond.
We
request
that
the
language
in
these
two
sections
be
consistent
to
prevent
confusion.
Many
times
during
operational
transfers,
data
and
information
are
unintentionally
misplaced
and/
or
lost.
We
request
that
EPA
allow
a
reasonable
grace
period
during
the
transfer
of
operations
for
new
operators
to
file
a
NOI.
The
commenter
has
not
made
clear
why
the
commenter
believes
the
"
language
in
item
D
and
in
Section
8.12.
C
does
not
correspond."
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
language
in
these
two
sections
is
inconsistent.

EPA
also
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
request
for
allowance
of
a
reasonable
grace
period.
Adherence
to
the
conditions
of
the
CGP
during
construction
is
an
ongoing
activity.
Misplacing
and
losing
data
and
information
is
an
unacceptable
rationale
for
needing
additional
time.
1028
6
295
Part
2.1.
B.
2:
This
item
establishes
the
requirement
to
indicate
on
an
NOI
whether
a
construction
site
is
a
Federal
project
or
whether
it
is
located
on
Federal
lands.
 
At
least
some
EPA
personnel
believe
this
item
is
intended
to
address
work
on
Federal
Facilities
versus
Federal
Lands.
If
this
is
accurate,
this
term
should
be
changed
from
"
Federal
Lands"
to
"
Federal
Facility"
and
the
term
"
Federal
Facility"
should
be
defined.
If,
however,
it
is
EPA's
intent
to
know
when
construction
is
occurring
on
Federal
Lands,
Oncor
requests
that
this
requirement
address
the
crossing
of
Federal
Lands
as
well
since
linear
projects
may
impact
both
federal
and
non­
federal
land.
The
following
alternative
wording
is
offered:
2.
Whether
the
site
is
a
Federal
project,
located
on
Federal
lands
or
crosses
Federal
lands;
EPA
agrees
and
uses
and
defines
the
term
"
federal
facilities"
to
be
"
any
buildings,
installations,
structures,
land,
public
works,
equipment,
aircraft,

vessels,
and
other
vehicles
and
property,
owned
by,
or
constructed
or
manufactured
for
the
purpose
of
leasing
to,
the
Federal
government."
1046
6
296
It
is
our
understanding
that
currently
it
is
the
responsibility
of
BOTH
the
operator
and
the
owner,
if
different,
to
submit
a
NOI.
Are
the
requirements
being
changed
and
will
the
owner
no
longer
need
to
file?

Please
advise.
EPA
has
not
changed
the
requirements
as
to
who
must
get
permit
coverage.

As
explained
in
the
"
Answers
to
Common
Questions"
part
of
the
CGP's
fact
sheet,
anyone
who
has
operational
control
over
an
aspect
of
a
construction
project
must
apply
for
a
permit.
There
are
many
different
situations.
EPA
has
described
a
number
of
these
in
the
fact
sheet.
1035
6
297
We
suggest
that
EPA
consider
revising
the
NOI
form
to
allow
for
one
NOI
to
be
jointly
processed
by
the
owner
and
operator.
To
further
streamline
the
process,

electronic
submissions
should
be
acceptable.
EPA
retained
the
requirement
that
any
entity
meeting
the
definition
of
operator
be
required
to
submit
an
NOI.
EPA
clarifies,
however,
that
the
CGP
allows
operators
to
submit
NOIs
which
certify
eligibility
for
Endangered
Species
Act
purposes
based
on
another
operator's
valid
certification
of
eligibility,
and
encourages
operators
to
jointly
develop
a
SWPPP
for
projects
with
multiple
operators.

EPA
is
developing
an
eNOI
form
that
will
be
available
within
90
days
of
the
effective
date
of
the
CGP
1035
2
Notice
of
Intent
Comment
Response
New
Topic
Summ.
ID
Summary
Response
DocumentID
6
301
Regarding
Signatory
Requirements:
It
states
that
for
a
state
agency,
the
NOI
and
NOT
must
be
signed
by
a
principal
executive
officer
or
ranking
elected
official.

ADOT
is
currently,
and
will
continue
to
have,
our
district
or
resident
engineers
as
contract
administrators
sign
these
documents.
Because
ADOT
projects
are
constructed
throughout
the
state,
it
would
be
inconsistent
to
project
responsibilities
to
have
our
Director
or
State
Engineer
sign
these
documents.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
has
added
clarification
to
the
fact
sheet
indicating
that
a
district
engineer
or
resident
engineer
meets
the
regulatory
and
permit
requirements.
1073
3
