National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities, 26-43 [E6-22413]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26-43]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22413]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0238; FRL-8264-1]
RIN 2060-AM16


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants to regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions 
from oil and natural gas production facilities that are area sources. 
The final national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 
major sources was promulgated on June 17, 1999, but final action with 
respect to area sources was deferred. Oil and natural gas production is 
identified in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy as an area source category 
for regulation under section 112(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act because of 
benzene emissions from triethylene glycol dehydration units located at 
such facilities. This final rule also amends a general provision in the 
regulation to allow the use of an ASTM standard as an alternative test 
method to EPA Method 18 in the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Oil and Natural Gas Production 
Facilities.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 3, 2007. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these 
rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 
3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0238. All documents in the docket are listed either 
on the www.regulations.gov Web site or in the legacy docket, A-94-04. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, 
EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. Note: The EPA Docket Center 
suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The 
Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, 
there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, 
addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand 
deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult 
EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA 
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current 
information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The 
Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for 
submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the 
flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Nizich, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings 
and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3078; fax 
number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: nizich.greg@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Entities potentially 
affected by this final rule include, but are not limited to, the 
following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of regulated
         Category              NAICS Code*             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................    211111, 211112  Condensate tank batteries,
                                               glycol dehydration units,
                                               and natural gas
                                               processing plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HH, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities. If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this final rule is also

[[Page 27]]

available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer 
Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this 
final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for 
newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available by filing a 
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by March 5, 2007. Only those objections to 
this final rule that were raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. Under 
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of 
this final rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides a mechanism for us 
to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising 
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to 
raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the 
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment 
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any 
person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Organization of this Document. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for this final rule?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of area source 
standards?
    C. How was this final rule developed?
II. Summary of This Final Rule
    A. What source categories are affected by this final rule?
    B. What is the affected source?
    C. What pollutants are emitted and controlled?
    D. Does this final rule apply to me?
    E. What are the emission limitations and work practice 
standards?
    F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
III. Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Compliance Dates
    B. Applicability Requirements
    C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
IV. Responses To Significant Comments
    A. What geographic applicability criteria is being used in this 
final rule?
    B. What urban definition is being used in this final rule?
    C. What are the requirements for remote/unmanned sources?
V. Impacts of This Final Rule
    A. What Are The Air Impacts?
    B. What Are The Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are The Economic Impacts?
    D. What Are The Non-Air Environmental and Energy Impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this final rule?

    Sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA instruct us to 
identify not less than 30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) which, as a 
result of emissions from area sources,\1\ present the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas, and to list 
sufficient source categories or subcategories to ensure that 90 percent 
of the emissions of the listed HAP (area source HAP) are subject to 
regulation. CAA Section 112(c)(3) requires us to regulate these listed 
area source categories under CAA section 112(d). Section 112(d)(5) of 
the CAA provides us with the discretion to set standards for area 
sources according to generally available control technologies (GACT) or 
management practices in lieu of maximum achievable control technologies 
(MACT). Unlike MACT, there is no prescription in CAA section 112(d)(5) 
that standards for existing sources must, at a minimum, be set at the 
level of emission reduction achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources, or that standards for new sources be set at the 
level of emission reduction achieved in practice by the best controlled 
similar source. The legislative history suggests that standards under 
CAA section 112(d)(5) should ``[reflect] application of generally 
available control technology--that is, methods, practices, and 
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts 
and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the 
emissions control systems.'' SEN. REP. NO. 101-228, at 171 (1989). 
Thus, by contrast to MACT, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows us to consider 
various factors in determining the appropriate standard for a given 
area source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under section 112(a) of the CAA, an area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source. A major source, as 
defined under section 112(a) of the CAA, is a stationary source or a 
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and 
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit 
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of 
any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What criteria are used in the development of area source standards?

    We are issuing standards for this area source category under CAA 
section 112(d)(5), in lieu of a MACT standard. There are factors 
relevant to this area source category that warrant our consideration, 
and we can properly assess those factors under section 112(d)(5) of the 
CAA. For example, the locations of oil and natural gas production 
sources are dictated by the locations of the relevant natural resources 
rather than a need to serve a particular population center. In 
addition, these sources do not typically require on-site operators and 
are usually not manned by large staff, if manned at all. Given the 
unique nature of these sources, many of these sources are located in 
remote areas. We believe that a CAA section 112(d)(5) standard is 
appropriate because it would allow us to adequately address these and 
other relevant factors, including costs, in promulgating these national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).

C. How was this final rule developed?

    We initially proposed NESHAP for the Oil and Natural Gas Production 
source category on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6288) that addressed both 
major and area source oil and natural gas production facilities. CAA 
Section

[[Page 28]]

112(c)(3) authorizes us to list for regulation an area source category 
``which the Administrator finds present a threat of adverse effects to 
human health or the environment * * * warranting regulation.'' In the 
1998 proposed NESHAP, we proposed to regulate this area source category 
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) due to the risks from exposure to 
benzene emissions from triethylene glycol (TEG) dehydration units at 
these area sources. Public comments were solicited at the time of the 
proposal. We received 29 comment letters on the proposed area source 
standards. On June 17, 1999, we promulgated the NESHAP for major 
sources of oil and natural gas production (64 FR 32610) but did not 
finalize either the 1998 proposed listing of this area source category 
for regulation or the proposed area source standards. Instead, on July 
19, 1999, we published the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy) (64 FR 
38706, July 19, 1999). The Strategy included benzene as one of the 30 
listed area source HAP under CAA section 112(k)(3)(B)(i). The Strategy 
also listed oil and natural gas production for regulation under CAA 
section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) because TEG dehydration units at oil and 
natural gas production facilities contributed approximately 47 percent 
of the national urban benzene emissions from area sources. On July 8, 
2005 (70 FR 39443), we published a supplemental proposal to the 1998 
proposed area source standards. The 60-day comment period ended on 
September 6, 2005, and we received 18 comment letters on the 
supplemental proposal. Today's final rule reflects our consideration of 
all of the comments received on both the 1998 and 2005 proposed 
standards for area sources of oil and natural gas production.

II. Summary of This Final Rule

A. What source categories are affected by this final rule?

    This final rule affects area source oil and natural gas production 
facilities. An oil and natural gas production facility processes, 
upgrades, or stores (1) hydrocarbon liquids (with the exception of 
those facilities that exclusively handle black oil) to the point of 
custody transfer and (2) natural gas from the well up to and including 
the natural gas processing plant.

B. What is the affected source?

    In this final rule, the affected source is defined as each TEG 
dehydration unit located at an area source oil and natural gas 
production facility. Other types of dehydration units or other emission 
points (e.g., equipment leaks) at area source oil and natural gas 
production facilities are not a part of the affected source.

C. What pollutants are emitted and controlled?

    The primary HAP associated with oil and natural gas production 
facilities include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and mixed xylenes 
and n-hexane. Only benzene is listed under CAA section 112(k)(3)(B)(i) 
as one of the 30 area source HAP. Benzene is classified as a known 
human carcinogen based on convincing human evidence (such as observed 
increases in the incidence of leukemia in exposed workers), as well as 
supporting evidence from animal studies. In addition, short-term 
inhalation of high benzene levels may cause nervous system effects such 
as drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, and unconsciousness in humans. At 
even higher concentrations of benzene, exposure may cause death, while 
lower concentrations may irritate the skin, eyes, and upper respiratory 
tract. Long-term inhalation exposure to benzene may cause various 
disorders of the blood and toxicity to the immune system. Reproductive 
disorders in women, as well as developmental effects in animals, have 
also been reported for benzene exposure.
    Benzene emissions from TEG dehydration units at oil and natural gas 
production facilities contributed approximately 47 percent of the 
nationwide urban area source benzene emissions. Accordingly, this final 
rule regulates benzene emissions from TEG dehydration units at area 
source oil and natural gas production facilities.

D. Does this final rule apply to me?

    You are subject to emissions reduction requirements in this final 
rule if you own or operate a TEG dehydration unit with an actual annual 
average natural gas flow rate equal to or greater than 85 thousand 
standard cubic meters per day (thousand m\3\/day) (3 million standard 
cubic feet per day (MMSCF/D)), and with benzene emissions equal to or 
greater than 0.90 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (1.0 ton per year (tpy)).

E. What are the emission limitations and work practice standards?

    We created three subcategories of sources in this final rule. We 
created a subcategory of TEG dehydration units with either an annual 
average natural gas flowrate less than 85 thousand m\3\/day (3 MMSCF/D) 
or benzene emissions less than 0.90 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy). As explained in 
the supplemental proposed rule, we determined that GACT is no control 
for these sources. We did not receive any comments on this 
determination.
    As for those TEG dehydration units with an annual average natural 
gas flow rate equal to or greater than 85 thousand m\3\/day (3 MMSCF/D) 
and benzene emissions equal to or greater than 0.90 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy), we 
subcategorized these units based on their locations with regard to 
areas of higher population densities. In evaluating population density, 
we started with the U.S. Census Bureau terms of ``urbanized area'' and 
``urban cluster.'' Upon evaluating the characteristics of this area 
source category, we define areas of higher population densities to be 
urbanized areas (UA),\2\ urban clusters (UC) \3\ that contain 10,000 
people or more,\4\ and the area located two miles \5\ or less from each 
UA boundary. For ease of reference, this final rule refers to these 
areas as ``UA plus offset and UC.'' As mentioned above, UA and UC are 
terms used by the United States Census Bureau to identify densely 
settled areas. Among other Census Bureau criteria, an UA has a 
population of at least 50,000 people, and an UC has a population of at 
least 2,500, but less than 50,000 people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Urbanized area (UA) refers to Census 2000 Urbanized Area, 
which is defined in the Urban Area Criteria for Census 2000, 67 FR 
11663, 11667 (March 15, 2002). Essentially, an UA consists of 
densely settled territory with a population of at least 50,000 
people.
    \3\ Urban cluster (UC) refers to Census 2000 Urban Cluster, 
which is defined in the Urban Area Criteria for Census 2000, 67 FR 
11667. Essentially, an UC consists of densely settled territory with 
at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people.
    \4\ This final rule does not cover all UC areas, but only those 
UC areas that contain 10,000 people or more, which are used to 
construct Census 2000 core-based statistical areas (65 FR 82233).
    \5\ We determined the 2-mile offset distance by reviewing maps 
of different UA areas and measuring the distance across the largest 
pockets or holes within the UA footprint. Since our evaluations 
showed that the largest distance was just under 4 miles across, we 
decided to use one half of that distance, i.e., 2 miles, as the 
offset distance. This would ensure that any sources located within a 
pocket or hole would be controlled as part of the UA source-group. 
Since we did not find the presence of holes in UC's, no offset is 
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those area source TEG dehydration units with natural gas 
throughput and benzene emission rates above the cutoff levels described 
above that are located within the UA plus offset and UC boundary, we 
are requiring, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5), that each such unit 
be connected, through a closed vent system, to one or more emission 
control devices. The control devices must: (1) Reduce HAP emissions by 
95 percent or more (generally by a condenser with a

[[Page 29]]

flash tank); or (2) reduce HAP emissions to an outlet concentration of 
20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less (for combustion devices); 
or (3) reduce benzene emissions to a level less than 0.90 Mg/yr (1.0 
tpy). As an alternative to complying with these control requirements, 
pollution prevention measures such as process modifications or 
combinations of process modifications and one or more control devices 
that reduce the amount of HAP generated, are allowed provided that they 
achieve the same required emission reductions.
    For those area source TEG dehydration units with natural gas 
throughput and benzene emission rates above the cutoff levels described 
above that are located outside of UA plus offset and UC boundaries, we 
are requiring, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5), that each unit reduce 
emissions by lowering the glycol circulation rate to be less than or 
equal to an optimum rate. The optimum rate is determined by the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JA07.000

Where:

LOPT = Optimal circulation rate, gal/hr.
F = Gas flowrate (MMSCF/D).
I = Inlet water content (lb/MMSCF), and
O = Outlet water content (lb/MMSCF).

    The constant 3.0 gal TEG/lb H2O is the industry accepted 
rule of thumb for a TEG-to-water ratio. The constant 1.15 is an 
adjustment factor included for a margin of safety.
    We decided to subcategorize in the manner described above for 
several reasons. We received a number of comments on both the 1998 and 
2005 proposals that this source category contains many sources that are 
located in remote areas. Our understanding of this area source category 
is consistent with the comment on the remoteness of the locations of 
many of these sources. We recognize that the oil and natural gas 
production source category is unique compared to many other area source 
categories in that the location of these sources is dictated by the 
location of the relevant natural resources rather than a need to serve 
a particular population center. In addition, sources in this category 
do not typically require on-site operators and are usually not manned 
by large staff, if manned at all. As previously mentioned, we believe 
that the standards need to be tailored to appropriately address these 
unique circumstances.
    In conducting our analysis, we compared the impacts of applying the 
add-on control requirement described above to TEG dehydration units 
nationwide to the impacts of only applying the requirement to units 
located in areas of high population densities (i.e., within the UA plus 
offset and UC boundary).\6\ Applying the add-on control to the 
estimated 2,222 TEG dehydration units nationwide would result in 
approximately 13,400 tpy of HAP (4,020 tpy of benzene) emission 
reduction. We estimate that these 2,222 TEG dehydration units are 
located in States with a combined population of 92 million people.\7\ 
The annual cost for this option was estimated to be $39 million. We 
then evaluated the impacts of applying the add-on control requirement 
to only those TEG dehydration units located within UA plus offset and 
UC boundaries. We estimated 50 TEG dehydration units in this area with 
a combined population of 80 million people. This scenario would result 
in a 300 tpy HAP (90 tpy of benzene) emission reduction and an annual 
cost of compliance of $883 thousand. Thus, extending the add-on control 
requirement to sources outside the UA plus offset and UC boundaries 
would result in an additional annual cost exceeding $38 million in an 
area with a combined population of 12 million people. This analysis 
showed that the overall cost of controlling units outside UA plus 
offset and UC boundaries was much higher for a lower population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Because we have determined that GACT is no control for units 
below the natural gas throughput and benzene emission threshold, we 
only considered the impacts of sources above the thresholds.
    \7\ We are using an approach by which we are evaluating the 
affected TEG dehydration units relative to the populations contained 
in the top 13 natural gas producing States (Texas, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, Wyoming, Louisiana, Colorado, Alaska, Kansas, California, 
Utah, Michigan, Alabama, and Mississippi). This approach is 
consistent with that used in the July 2005 proposal (70 FR 39446).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the areas located outside UA plus offset and UC boundaries 
are sparsely populated compared to those inside UA plus offset and UC 
boundaries, we do not believe the additional cost associated with 
extending the add-on control requirement to sources in this area is 
justified. Under this final rule, the add-on control requirement 
applies only to sources located within the UA plus offset and UC 
boundaries. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA authorizes us to set standards 
for area sources that provide for the use of generally available 
management practices by sources to reduce HAP emissions. Pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(5), we have prescribed a management practice for 
sources located outside the UA plus offset and UC boundaries. We have 
determined that adjusting the TEG circulation rate is an appropriate 
management practice for several reasons. First, by lowering the TEG 
circulation rate, the amount of glycol that comes in contact with the 
natural gas is reduced, thereby lowering the amount of HAP (e.g., 
benzene) that is absorbed by the glycol and subsequently emitted 
through the reboiler vent when the glycol is regenerated. We estimate 
that the HAP emissions reduction is approximately 7,600 tpy (2,400 tpy 
of benzene) for the approximately 2,172 sources located outside UA plus 
offset and UC boundaries. Second, reducing the TEG circulation rate has 
the added benefit of reducing natural gas losses. Natural gas is also 
absorbed by the TEG, and subsequently emitted through the reboiler 
vent. The amount of natural gas vented is directly proportional to the 
TEG circulation rate. Lowering the TEG circulation rate has a direct 
impact on the amount of natural gas lost. Third, optimizing the TEG 
circulation rate can be achieved without sacrificing the performance of 
the TEG dehydration unit. Fourth, this process variable does not 
require the presence of an on-site operator to maintain and, thus, 
would be an achievable option for unmanned sources. Finally, the TEG 
circulation rate can be optimized for minimal capital cost (e.g., a new 
pump may be required) and could result in an annual cost savings due to 
the reduction of the natural gas losses. Therefore, this final rule 
requires each TEG dehydration unit at area source oil and natural gas 
production facilities located outside of UA plus offset and UC 
boundaries to reduce emissions by optimizing the TEG circulation rate.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

    To demonstrate that the actual annual average natural gas flowrate 
of your TEG dehydration unit is less than 85 thousand m3/day 
(3 MMSCF/D), this final rule specifies that you must determine the 
natural gas flow rate using either a flow measurement device or another 
method approved by the Administrator. To demonstrate that your TEG 
dehydration unit emits less than 0.90 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy) of benzene, this 
final rule specifies that you must determine its emissions using either 
GRI-GLYCalcTM, Version 3.0 or higher, or direct measurement.
    For TEG dehydration units that have an actual annual average 
natural gas flowrate and benzene emission rate at or above the cut-off 
levels mentioned above and are located within the UA

[[Page 30]]

plus offset and UC boundaries, the source must submit Notification of 
Compliance Status Reports, inspect/test the closed-vent system and 
control device(s), and establish monitoring parameter values. If the 
unit is above the cut-offs and located outside the UA plus offset and 
UC boundaries, the source only has to submit an Initial Notification 
which must include a certified statement of future compliance.
    We are finalizing the change proposed in the July 8, 2005 notice to 
allow ASTM D6420-99 (2004) as an alternative where EPA Method 18 is 
specified. The General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 will be amended to 
incorporate the approved method by reference for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HH. See section VI.J. for further discussion.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

    Area sources within UA plus offset and UC boundaries are required 
to submit periodic reports on an annual basis, instead of semiannually, 
as is required for major sources. Continuous compliance requirements 
include submitting periodic reports, conducting annual inspections of 
closed-vent systems, repairing leaks and defects, conducting the 
required monitoring, and maintaining the required records. As described 
in the 1998 proposal and the 2005 proposal, these monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are the same as those 
required for major sources except for the frequency of submittal for 
periodic reports. Sources outside the UA plus offset and UC boundaries 
must maintain a record of the circulation rate determination.

III. Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Compliance Dates

    The compliance date provisions for existing sources in this final 
rule differ from the two proposed rules in two respects. First, because 
we have added a management practice requirement to this final rule, we 
included a 2-year compliance deadline for existing sources subject to 
this requirement. The management practice requirement would require, at 
most, that a source install a new glycol pump to optimize the TEG 
circulation rate. We believe that 2 years is a sufficient length of 
time in which to install and operate the glycol pump at the optimum 
circulation rate. We considered making the compliance deadline 1 year, 
however we decided that given the estimated 2,172 sources required to 
implement this management practice, a 2-year compliance period was more 
appropriate.
    Second, we use the date of the 1998 proposed rule for defining 
existing and new sources in ``Urban-1'' counties only. In the 2005 
supplemental proposal, we used the date of the 1998 proposed rule to 
define new and existing sources in both Urban-1 and ``Urban-2'' 
counties, because we had proposed to regulate sources in these counties 
in the 1998 proposed rule.\8\ Since then, we concluded that defining 
existing and new sources in Urban-2 counties based on the date of the 
1998 proposed rule would be inappropriate because the 1998 proposed 
rule contained an inaccurate definition for Urban-2 and, therefore, did 
not provide adequate notice to sources in Urban-2 counties. 
Accordingly, this final rule uses the date of the 1998 proposal for 
defining existing and new sources in Urban-1 counties only. For sources 
in areas other than Urban-1 counties, this final rule determines 
existing and new sources based on the date of the 2005 supplemental 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Both the 1998 and 2005 proposed rules provided definitions 
for ``Urban-1'' and ``Urban-2.'' However, we did not accurately 
define ``Urban-2'' in the 1998 proposed rule. The definition for 
``Urban-2'' was corrected in the 2005 supplemental proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble presents compliance dates for existing and 
new sources for this final rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     and the
   For an affected source located in a county we                                                                       where the source was constructed/       then the source   compliance date
                classified as * * *                                      and is located * * *                                reconstruct-ed * * *                  is * * *      for that source
                                                                                                                                                                                  would be * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Urban-1 based on 2000 census data,.............  within any UA plus offset and UC boundary,.................  before February 6, 1998,..................  Existing.........  January 5,
                                                                                                                                                                                  2010.
(b) Urban-1 based on 2000 census data,.............  Not within any UA plus offset and UC boundary,.............  before February 6, 1998,..................  Existing.........  January 5,
                                                                                                                                                                                  2009.
(c) Urban-1 based on 2000 census data,.............  either within or outside any UA plus offset and UC           on or after February 6, 1998,.............  New..............  January 3, 2007
                                                      boundary,.                                                                                                                  or startup,
                                                                                                                                                                                  whichever is
                                                                                                                                                                                  later.
(d) Not Urban-1 based on 2000 census data,.........  within any UA plus offset and UC boundary,.................  before July 8, 2005,......................  Existing.........  January 4,
                                                                                                                                                                                  2010.
(e) Not Urban-1 based on 2000 census data,.........  Not within any UA plus offset and UC boundary,.............  before July 8, 2005,......................  Existing.........  January 5,
                                                                                                                                                                                  2009.
(f) Not Urban-1 based on 2000 census data,.........  Either within or outside any UA plus offset and UC           on or after July 8, 2005,.................  New..............  January 3, 2007
                                                      boundary,.                                                                                                                  or startup,
                                                                                                                                                                                  whichever is
                                                                                                                                                                                  later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Applicability Requirements

    Whereas the proposed rules proposed applying the add-on control 
requirement either nationally or only to TEG dehydration units at 
sources located in ``urban'' counties, this final rule applies this 
requirement to: Units at area sources located within a UA plus offset 
and UC boundary, which is described in section II.E above. Units at 
area sources not located within the UA plus offset and UC boundaries 
must implement the prescribed management practices (i.e., adjust TEG 
circulation rate) for operation of the TEG dehydration unit. Guidance 
is available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/oilgas/
oilgaspg.html to assist in determining your location relative to a UA 
plus offset and UC boundary, or you can access the Bureau of Census Web 
site at https://factfinder.census.gov to generate a map based on the 
location of your TEG dehydration unit and calculate the location 
relative to the nearest UA plus offset and UC boundaries.

[[Page 31]]

C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements

    This final rule follows the requirements of the General Provisions 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A) regarding startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) events. Because this final rule only requires area 
sources within UA plus offset and UC boundaries to have add-on control, 
only sources within the UA plus offset and UC boundaries are subject to 
the General Provisions regarding SSM.

IV. Responses to Significant Comments

    Our responses to all of the significant public comments on both 
proposals are presented in the Response to Comments Document which is 
available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0238.

A. What Geographic Applicability Criteria is Being Used in this final 
rule?

    Comment: We proposed two options for the geographic applicability 
criteria: (1) all TEG dehydration units would be subject to area source 
standards (hereinafter referred to as ``Option 1''); and (2) area 
source standards would apply to TEG dehydration units located in Urban-
1 and Urban-2 counties (hereinafter referred to as ``Option 2''). We 
received comments objecting to Option 1 for primarily two reasons: (1) 
EPA does not have the authority to regulate rural sources under the 
CAA; and (2) regulation of rural or remote sources is not warranted due 
to low exposure risks.
    The commenters stated that nationwide applicability is contrary to 
the plain language of the CAA, specifically section 112(k). According 
to the commenters, CAA section 112(k) is designed to address those 
smaller sources of HAP that create unacceptable exposures in 
concentrated urban areas; remote, small, or sparsely populated rural 
areas, where many dehydrators are located, are therefore not within the 
scope of CAA section 112(k)(1). Several commenters stated that there is 
no clear indication that emissions from remote sources provide a 
meaningful contribution to ambient air toxic levels in urban areas; 
therefore, regulating rural sources would not have the effect intended 
by the CAA.
    We also received comments objecting to Option 1 asserting that 
exposure risks from facilities located in rural or remote areas are low 
or nonexistent. One commenter stressed that the foundation for the area 
source program was based on regulating area sources in a manner that 
would result in a public health benefit. The commenter stated that 
regulating dehydration units in rural areas, which are sparsely 
populated, would not yield the same public health benefits that were 
``contemplated'' by the statute.
    Response: We believe that the CAA provides the Agency with the 
authority to regulate area sources nationwide. CAA section 112(k)(1) 
states that ``It is the purpose of this subsection to achieve a 
substantial reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants from 
area sources and an equivalent reduction in the public health risks 
associated with such sources including a reduction of not less than 75 
per centum in the incidence of cancer attributable to emissions from 
such sources.'' Consistent with this expressed purpose of CAA section 
112(k) to reduce both emissions and risks, CAA section 112(k)(3)(i) 
requires that we list not less than 30 HAP that, as a result of 
emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to public 
health in the largest number of urban areas. CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 
(k)(3)(ii) require that we list area source categories that represent 
not less than 90 percent of the area source emissions of each of the 
listed HAP. CAA section 112(c) requires that we issue standards for 
listed categories under CAA section 112(d). These relevant statutory 
provisions authorize us to regulate listed area source categories and 
not just sources located in urban areas.
    In both the UATS and our July 8, 2005 supplemental proposal, we 
identified the reasons supporting a national rule (e.g., benzene's 
toxicity and carcinogenicity, a level playing field, the 75 percent 
cancer incidence reduction goal) (64 FR 38724 and 70 FR 39446). 
Furthermore, by requiring management practices rather than control 
requirements on sources outside the UA plus offset and UC boundaries, 
we believe that we have appropriately addressed commenters' concern 
with respect to remote sources being subject to unnecessary or costly 
requirements.

B. What urban definition is being used in this final rule?

    Comment: Several commenters opposed EPA's definition of ``urban 
areas.'' According to the commenters, by defining urban areas as 
county-wide areas, EPA has expanded urban areas to include large 
expanses of rural territories. One commenter stated that a comparison 
of land area to population on a county basis shows that the target 
population for protection is very thinly distributed. Four commenters 
referred to maps noting that the maps show vast areas of the United 
States that would be classified as urban areas based on the proposed 
definition, but have very low population. The commenters specifically 
referred to the State of Wyoming, in which half of the State is 
classified as ``urban'' using EPA's proposed definition. One commenter 
also pointed out that in Utah, six of the 12 counties designated as 
urban using EPA's definition have a population density of less than ten 
persons per square mile.
    Other commenters stated that some counties with a total population 
of less than 5,000, and an average population density of less than two 
people per square mile, would be classified as urban under the Urban-2 
designation. In order to illustrate the broad geographical 
applicability that includes remote locations, the commenters stated 
that, based on the Urban-2 definition, urban designations would be 
applied to:
     14 of 23 counties in Wyoming;
     20 of 33 counties in New Mexico;
     10 or 17 counties in Nevada; and
     17 of 56 counties in Montana.
    One commenter stated that EPA's proposed definition of urban areas 
would be unnecessarily costly and burdensome on sites located in rural 
or remote areas, but classified as urban. One commenter acknowledged 
that there has been, and will continue to be, instances of energy 
production and population encroachment. However, according to the 
commenter, most of the known conventional or unconventional gas supply 
basins are likely to remain rural for the foreseeable future.
    Response: The statute does not define urban, thus, leaving us the 
discretion to define the term. We proposed and took comments on our 
definition of the term urban as part of our 1999 UATS. The definition 
was the basis for the listing of area source categories pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA. We are currently under 
court-ordered deadlines to complete issuing standards for all listed 
area source categories. Changing the definition of urban would mean 
recreating an area source category list, which may differ significantly 
from the current list and, thus, greatly hinders our effort to complete 
our obligation by the court-ordered deadlines. Therefore, we believe 
that revisiting the definition of urban is inappropriate at this time. 
However, we have tailored this rule to address the unique circumstances 
associated with this source category, as described above. Moreover, in 
response to comments regarding the nature of remote sources, we 
modified this final rule and are only requiring the add-on control 
requirement for sources in areas of higher population densities, which 
we have identified as areas within the UA plus offset and UC 
boundaries. This

[[Page 32]]

rule imposes the less costly management practice requirements on 
sources outside the UA plus offset and UC boundaries.

C. What are the requirements for remote/unmanned sources?

    Comment: Commenters said if EPA imposes controls on TEG dehydrators 
outside of Urban-1 areas, it should adopt a separate (lesser) control 
standard for those remote area sources for the following reasons:
     It is not justified based on health effects.
     Practical considerations prevent operators from achieving 
the 95-percent control efficiency on remote, unmanned TEG dehydrators.
    Commenters said that in order to meet the 95-percent control 
efficiency or the outlet concentration, an operator generally has to 
install a system with a forced draft fan for the condenser and a flare 
or vapor recovery system. Many remote sources do not have an electric 
power supply, which precludes using a forced draft fan. Routing the 
vapors to the firebox or fire-tube is not practical in all situations 
because the high water vapor content can extinguish the fire. While 
flares and vapor recovery systems address this problem, they require 
frequent monitoring, which is a problem at unmanned sites that are only 
visited infrequently. The lack of electric power supply would make 
certain automated monitoring systems impossible.
    Commenters said EPA should adopt a separate GACT standard for 
facilities outside of ``Urban-1'' areas and ``urbanized areas.'' The 
95-percent control efficiency standard could still apply in Urban-1 
areas and urbanized areas, but it would not otherwise apply to area 
source TEG dehydrators. The commenters recommended that EPA set GACT 
for facilities that are not located in Urban-1 or urbanized areas as a 
reduction of benzene to a level of less than 1 tpy, and remove the 95-
percent control efficiency requirement. One commenter added that GACT 
could also be considered as the installation of a flash tank/condenser 
or incinerator process.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that it is reasonable to 
require a higher level of emission reductions for TEG dehydration units 
located in more densely populated areas. We also recognize that the oil 
and natural gas source category is unique because there are many area 
sources that are located in remote or rural areas. For these reasons 
and the reasons discussed above, we have subcategorized to 
differentiate between those sources above the cutoff levels identified 
above that are located inside UA plus offset and UC boundaries and 
those located outside such boundaries. We require installation of 
control equipment for TEG dehydration units located inside UA plus 
offset and UC boundaries and management practices (i.e., optimized 
glycol circulation rate) for units located outside UA plus offset and 
UC boundaries. We believe that this approach addresses the commenters' 
concerns regarding the control of remote or rural facilities.

V. Impacts of This Final Rule

    The environmental and cost impacts for this final rule are 
presented in Table 2 of this preamble:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Existing         New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Impacted Facilities.........        2,222          *141
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facilities Required to Install Add-On Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Facilities........................           50             3
Emission Reductions (Mg/yr):
    HAP.....................................          300            17
    VOC.....................................          530            30
    Benzene.................................           90             5
Secondary Emissions Increases (Mg/yr):
    SO2.....................................           <1            <1
    NOX.....................................           <1            <1
    CO......................................           <1            <1
Cost Impacts:
    Total Capital Investment (1,000 $/yr)...          850            35
    Total Annual Cost (1,000 $/yr)..........          880            50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Facilities Required to Implement Management Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Facilities........................        2,172           138
Emission Reductions (Mg/yr):
    HAP.....................................        6,900           440
    VOC.....................................       14,020           890
    Benzene.................................        2,200           140
Cost Impacts:
    Total Capital Investment (1,000 $/yr)...        1,700           105
    Total Annual Cost without considering          14,200           905
     gas savings (1,000 $/yr)...............
    Total Annual gas savings (1,000 $/yr)...      (12,600)         (800)
    Total Annual Cost considering gas               1,600          105
     savings (1,000 $/yr)...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* New source estimates are estimated by determining the average number
  of new sources per year.

A. What Are the Air Impacts?

    For existing area source TEG dehydration units in the oil and 
natural gas production source category, we estimate that nationwide 
baseline area sources HAP emissions are 45,100 Mg/yr (49,600 tpy) and 
13,500 Mg/yr of benzene (14,800 tpy). The final standards require that 
TEG dehydration units with a natural gas throughput greater than 85 
thousand m\3\/day (3 MMSCF/D) and benzene emissions greater than 0.90 
Mg/yr (1.0 tpy), located within the UA plus offset and UC boundaries 
achieve a 95-percent emission reduction or reduce benzene emissions to 
less than 0.90 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy) either through pollution prevention 
process changes or by installing a control device (e.g., condenser), 
while sources located outside the UA plus

[[Page 33]]

offset and UC boundaries optimize their glycol circulation rate. We 
estimate that this final rule will result in a HAP emission reduction 
of 7,200 Mg/yr (7,900 tpy) and 2,200 Mg/yr of benzene (2,400 tpy).
    To estimate the impacts of this final rule on new sources, we 
assumed that new area source facilities would, in the absence of the 
standards, have baseline emissions equivalent to existing sources. We 
estimate that a total of 7,200 new area source TEG dehydration units 
will be constructed within the next 5 years, or 2,400 per year. Of 
these 7,200 new area source TEG dehydration units, we estimate that a 
total of 423 (141 per year) will have an actual annual average natural 
gas flowrate greater than or equal to 85 thousand m\3\/day (3 MMSCF/D). 
Using these assumptions, we estimate the nationwide emission reduction 
resulting from new area source TEG dehydration units complying with 
this final rule would be approximately 450 Mg/yr (500 tpy) of HAP and 
140 Mg/yr (150 tpy) of benzene from the 141 new area sources that would 
become subject each year. We assume that, of the 141 new area sources, 
3 would be located within the UA plus offset and UC boundaries and 138 
would be located outside the boundaries.
    Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air, 
water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with 
the implementation of the final standards. These impacts are exclusive 
of the direct organic HAP air emissions reductions discussed in the 
previous section.
    The capture and control of benzene that is presently emitted from 
area source TEG dehydration units will result in a decrease in volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions as well. The estimated total VOC 
emissions reductions are 14,550 Mg/yr (16,000 tpy) from existing 
sources.
    Other secondary environmental impacts are those associated with the 
operation of certain air emission control devices (i.e., flares). The 
adverse secondary air impacts would be minimal in comparison to the 
primary HAP reduction benefits from implementing the final control 
requirements for area sources. We estimate that the national annual 
increase of secondary air pollutant emissions resulting from the use of 
a flare to comply with the final standards is less than 1 Mg/yr for 
sulfur oxides, 1 Mg/yr for carbon monoxide, and 1 Mg/yr for nitrogen 
oxides.

B. What are the Cost Impacts?

    Since several compliance options are available to owners/operators 
of affected sources subject to the add-on control requirement, we are 
not sure what control method will be employed. Sources can control 
emissions by routing emissions to a condenser, a flare, a process 
heater, or back to the process or by implementing pollution prevention 
process changes. For the cost estimates developed for condenser 
systems, we looked at systems with and without the use of a gas 
condensate glycol separator (GCG separator) or flash tank in TEG 
dehydration system design. We estimate that approximately 50 sources 
are located within the UA plus offset and UC boundaries. For the new 
source cost impacts, we assumed that new area source TEG dehydration 
units will be constructed with a flash tank.
    Affected sources located outside of UA plus offset and UC 
boundaries are required to operate the TEG dehydration unit at the 
optimum glycol circulation rate. For estimating annual costs for these 
sources, it was assumed that in order to meet the optimum glycol 
circulation rate, owners or operators would be required to purchase and 
install a new pump. Because reducing the glycol circulation rate to an 
optimum level reduces gas losses, a recovery credit is also associated 
with this requirement. Although we believe a minority of sources will 
have to install a new pump to meet the management practice 
requirements, costs were estimated by assuming that 50 percent of the 
2,172 sources would have to install a new pump while the other 50 
percent could lower the circulation rate sufficiently by making 
adjustments on the existing pump.
    The estimated annual costs shown in Table 2 of this preamble 
include the capital cost; operating and maintenance costs; the cost of 
monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting; and any 
associated product recovery credits.

C. What are the Economic Impacts?

    For the 1998 proposal, we prepared an economic impact analysis 
evaluating the impacts of the rule on affected producers, consumers, 
and society. The economic analysis focused on the regulatory effects on 
the United States natural gas market that is modeled as a national, 
perfectly competitive market for a homogenous commodity.
    The results of the analysis showed that the imposition of 
regulatory costs on the natural gas market would result in negligible 
changes in natural gas prices, output, employment, foreign trade, and 
business closures. The price and output changes as a result of the 1998 
proposed regulation were estimated to be less than 0.01 percent, 
significantly less than observed market trends. We continue to believe 
that the previous analysis is valid for today's action and that the 
result of the 1998 economic impact analysis resulted in a very low 
percent increase in price and output changes. Therefore, we believe 
that imposition of regulatory costs associated with this final rule 
will result in negligible changes in natural gas prices, output, 
employment, foreign trade, and business closures.

D. What are the Non-Air Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    The water impacts associated with the installation of a condenser 
system for the TEG dehydration unit reboiler vent would be minimal. 
This is because the condensed water collected with the hydrocarbon 
condensate can be directed back into the system for reprocessing with 
the hydrocarbon condensate or, if separated, combined with produced 
water for disposal by reinjection.
    Similarly, the water impacts associated with installation of a 
vapor control system would be minimal. This is because the water vapor 
collected along with the hydrocarbon vapors in the vapor collection and 
redirect system can be directed back into the system for reprocessing 
with the hydrocarbon condensate or, if separated, combined with the 
produced water for disposal for reinjection.
    The best management practice of optimizing the glycol circulation 
rate would result in lower quantities of water being absorbed into the 
glycol and sent to the glycol dehydration unit.
    Therefore, we expect the adverse water impacts from the 
implementation of the emissions reduction options for the final area 
source standards to be minimal.
    We do not anticipate any adverse solid waste impacts from the 
implementation of the area source standards.
    Energy impacts are those energy requirements associated with the 
operation of emission control devices. There would be no national 
energy demand increase from the operation of any of the control options 
analyzed under the final oil and natural gas production standards for 
area sources. The final area source standards encourage the use of 
emission controls that recover hydrocarbon products, such as methane 
and condensate that can be used on-site as fuel or reprocessed, within 
the production process, for sale. There are no energy requirements 
associated with the management

[[Page 34]]

practices within this final rule. Thus, the final standards have a 
positive impact associated with the recovery of non-renewable energy 
resources.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' This action meets 
criteria 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866, ``raise novel legal or 
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.'' 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information to be collected for the area source provisions of 
the Oil and Natural Gas Production NESHAP are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This final rule requires maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but does not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the applicable General Provisions in subpart A to 40 CFR 
part 63. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific 
information needed to determine compliance.
    The Oil and Natural Gas Production NESHAP requires that facility 
owners or operators retain records for a period of 5 years, which 
exceeds the 3-year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 
CFR 1320.6. The 5-year retention period is consistent with the 
provisions of the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, and with the 5-
year records retention requirement in the operating permit program 
under title V of the CAA. All subsequent guidelines have been followed 
and do not violate any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines 
contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.
    The annual projected burden for this information collection to 
owners and operators of affected sources subject to the emissions 
reduction requirements in this final rule (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the promulgated rule) is estimated to 
be 28,000 labor-hours per year, with a total annual cost of $1.6 
million per year. These estimates include a one-time performance test 
and report (with repeat tests where needed), preparation of a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, immediate reports for any event when 
the procedures in the plan were not followed, annual compliance 
reports, maintenance inspections, notifications, and recordkeeping.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this 
Information Collection Request is approved by OMB, the Agency will 
publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register 
to display the OMB control number for the approved information 
collection requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business with 500 
employees or less (as defined by the Small Business Administration's 
(SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000