Anonymous public comment

I am concerned about these proposed changes to the regulatory policy for construction projects. In a time when air quality is of real concerns, as are involved affects to extreme weather, water sources, and wildlife. The messaging seems to imply that the the pollutant affects will be inconsequential, yet if they were inconsequential, why do they need a change? To avoid a permit? They can deal with a permit. These activities, I would argue, are not neutral, and I do want them regulated. Inconveniences to major companies are not my concern, as they are unconcerned about everyday people and our need for clean air. There is, of course, complexity, including the unequal affects that small entities suffer which their larger counterparts can well afford. That still does not remove the danger from people. I would need third-party, unbiased research and projections to support such disregulation. On the note of complexity and nuance, not all projects are equal, though the language argues they should be treated as such. Clearing a piece of land for farming has a much different impact than "preparing" to construct a parking structure or an office building or a factory. In simple terms, I dissent. I am highly suspicious of this proposal, and the burden of proof is on the Agency to demonstrate a lack of harm, as well as positive benefits to the American people.