Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Amendments, 10628-10638 [2018-04431]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10628
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action adding
regulation 9VAC5–30–57 ‘‘Ozone (8hour 0.070 ppm)’’ to the Virginia SIP
may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 11, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV—Virginia
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by adding the entry ‘‘5–
30–57’’ in numerical order under the
heading ‘‘9 VAC 5, Chapter 30 Ambient
Air Quality Standards [Part III]’’ to read
as follows:
■
Dated: February 23, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
§ 52.2420
*
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES
State citation
*
*
*
*
5–30–57 .......................................
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9975–10–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT59
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission
Standards for New, Reconstructed,
and Modified Sources; Amendments
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes
amendments of certain requirements
that are contained within the final rule
titled ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,’’
published in the Federal Register on
June 3, 2016 (2016 Rule). The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is finalizing amendments of two narrow
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
*
*
*
06/01/2016
*
*
03/12/2018 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 244001
provisions of the requirements for the
collection of fugitive emission
components at well sites and
compressor stations: Removes the
requirement for completion of delayed
repair during unscheduled or
emergency vent blowdowns, and
provides separate monitoring
requirements for well sites located on
the Alaskan North Slope.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DATES:
*
[FR Doc. 2018–04422 Filed 3–9–18; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Explanation
[former SIP citation]
Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III]
*
Ozone (8-hour, 0.070 ppm) .........
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
9 VAC 5, Chapter 30
*
State effective
date
Title/subject
This final rule is effective on
March 12, 2018.
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is presented as follows:
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publically
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 electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary of Final Action
A. Delayed Repairs
B. Alaskan North Slope
V. Summary of Significant Comments and
Responses
A. The EPA’s Legal Authority
B. Delayed Repairs
C. Alaskan North Slope
VI. Impacts of the Final Amendments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Mrs.
Karen Marsh, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143–05), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
1065; email address: marsh.karen@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
10629
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
affected by this action include:
TABLE 1—INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION
NAICS code 1
Category
Industry ..................................................................................................
211111
211112
221210
486110
486210
Federal government ...............................................................................
State/local/tribal government .................................................................
1 North
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction.
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.
Natural Gas Distribution.
Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil.
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
Not affected.
Not affected.
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. This table lists
the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
entity is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in the final
rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble, your
delegated authority, or your EPA
Regional representative listed in 40 CFR
60.4 (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of the final
action is available on the internet.
Following signature by the
Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this final action at https://
www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollutionoil-and-natural-gas-industry. Additional
information is also available at the same
website.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Examples of regulated entities
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this
final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by May 11, 2018.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements established by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements. Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides
that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or
procedure which was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment (including any
public hearing) may be raised during
judicial review.’’ This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA 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,
EPA WJC West 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.
II. Background
On June 3, 2016, the EPA published
a final rule titled ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas
Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources;
Final Rule,’’ at 81 FR 35824 (‘‘2016
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rule’’). The 2016 Rule established new
source performance standards (NSPS)
for greenhouse gas and volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from the oil
and natural gas sector. This rule
addressed, among other things, fugitive
emissions at well sites and compressor
stations (‘‘fugitive emissions
requirements’’) and emissions from
pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a
number of affected facilities (i.e.,
centrifugal compressors, reciprocating
compressors, pneumatic pumps, and
storage vessels), the rule required
certification by a professional engineer
of the closed vent system design and
capacity, as well as any technical
infeasibility determination relative to
controlling pneumatic pumps at well
sites. For further information on the
2016 Rule, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3,
2016) and associated Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. A number
of states and industry associations
sought judicial review of the rule, and
the litigation is currently being held in
abeyance. In addition, the EPA received
a number of petitions for administrative
reconsideration of the rule and on April
18, 2017, convened a proceeding to
reconsider certain aspects of the rule,
including those related to the above
three requirements.
On June 16, 2017, the EPA proposed
to stay the fugitive emissions
requirements, the well site pneumatic
pump requirements, and the
requirements for certification of closed
vent systems by a professional engineer
for 2 years. The EPA proposed the stay
of these requirements in order to
provide the EPA with sufficient time to
propose, take public comment on, and
issue a final action on the issues under
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
10630
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
reconsideration. See 82 FR 27645 (June
16, 2017). On November 8, 2017, the
EPA issued a notice of data availability
(NODA), in which the EPA offered
additional information in further
support of the proposed stay and
solicited comments on a suggestion
from stakeholders to allow additional
time to phase in these requirements as
opposed to a stay. See 82 FR 51788
(November 8, 2017). Additionally, the
NODA solicited comment and
information on several implementation
challenges raised by stakeholders. In
particular, the EPA broadly solicited
comments on issues associated with the
requirement to complete repairs on
components on a delay of repair
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘delayed
repair’’ for short in this notice) 1 during
emergency or unscheduled shutdowns
or vent blowdowns and suggestions for
addressing the issues. See 82 FR 51793.
EPA received a broad range of
comments and information in response
to the proposed stay and the NODA.
Relevant to this action is information
regarding two specific provisions of the
fugitive emissions requirements that we
have concluded present immediate
compliance concerns: (1) The
requirement that delayed repairs must
be completed during unscheduled or
emergency vent blowdowns that occur
within the 2-year repair timeframe and
prior to other scheduled events, and (2)
the monitoring survey requirements for
well sites located on the Alaskan North
Slope. See section IV of this preamble
for a discussion of these concerns and
these final amendments. The Agency is
still examining comments related to all
other issues raised in the proposal and
NODA, including other issues related to
delayed repair and the Alaskan North
Slope, and is not taking final action
with respect to these other matters in
this final action.
III. Legal Authority
The legal authority for this final
action, which amends two narrow
provisions of the fugitive emissions
requirements in the 2016 Rule, is the
same as that for the promulgation of the
2016 Rule. The EPA promulgated the
2016 Rule pursuant to section
111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, which requires
the EPA to issue ‘‘standards of
performance’’ for new sources in the list
of categories of stationary sources that
cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. See 81 FR 35828. CAA section
111(a)(1) defines ‘‘a standard of
1 See 40 CFR 60.5397a(h)(2) for delay of repair
requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
performance’’ as ‘‘a standard for
emissions of air pollutants which
reflects the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such
reduction and any nonair quality health
and environmental impact and energy
requirement) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated.’’ This definition makes
clear that the standard of performance
must be based on controls that
constitute ‘‘the best system of emission
reduction . . . adequately
demonstrated.’’ The standard that the
EPA develops, based on the best system
of emission reduction (BSER), is
commonly a numerical emissions limit,
expressed as a performance level (e.g., a
rate-based standard). However, CAA
section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate a work
practice standard or other requirements,
which reflects the best technological
system of continuous emission
reduction, if it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emissions
standard. The work practice standards
for fugitive emissions from well sites
and compressor stations were
promulgated pursuant to CAA section
111(h)(1)(A). See 81 FR 35829.
Agencies have inherent authority to
reconsider past decisions and to revise,
replace, or repeal a decision to the
extent permitted by law and supported
by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (‘‘State Farm’’). ‘‘The
power to decide in the first instance
carries with it the power to reconsider.’’
Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084,
1086 (10th Cir. 1980); see also, United
Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery
Properties, Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229
(1965); Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d
701, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Accordingly,
in this final rule, the EPA is using the
same statutory authority in
promulgating the 2016 Rule to amend
two provisions of the fugitive emissions
requirements in the 2016 Rule. As
explained below in section IV, with
these two narrowly tailored
amendments, the fugitive emissions
requirements better reflect BSER for
reducing fugitive emissions at well sites
and compressor stations.
IV. Summary of Final Action
The EPA is finalizing amendments to
two fugitive emissions requirements: (1)
The requirements for delayed repairs,
and (2) the monitoring survey
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requirements for well sites located on
the Alaskan North Slope.
A. Delayed Repairs
In this action, the EPA is finalizing
amendments to the requirements related
to delayed repairs. Specifically, the final
rule removes the requirement for
completion of delayed repairs during
unscheduled or emergency vent
blowdowns. Owners and operators are
still required to complete repairs during
the next compressor station shutdown,
well shutdown, well shut-in, after a
planned vent blowdown, or within 2
years, whichever is earlier.
The 2016 Rule requires replacement
or repair of a component within 30 days
of detection of fugitive emissions, but
allows delaying the replacement/repair
under certain situations specified in the
rule. Specifically, the rule requires that
the delayed repair ‘‘must be completed
during the next compressor station
shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in,
after an unscheduled, planned or
emergency vent blowdown or within 2
years, whichever is earlier.’’ See 40 CFR
60.5397a(h)(2). While the only
unscheduled and emergency event
specified in this regulation is with
regard to vent blowdown, the EPA
stated in the preamble to the 2016 Rule
that ‘‘if an unscheduled or emergency
vent blowdown, compressor station
shutdown, well shutdown, or well shutin occurs during the delay of repair
period, the fugitive emissions
components would need to be fixed at
that time.’’ See 81 FR 35858, June 3,
2016. This preamble language implied
that delayed repairs were required if any
of these events occurred, regardless of
whether it was planned. As mentioned
previously, the EPA discussed in the
NODA stakeholder feedback that
requiring repair or replacement of
fugitive emissions components during
unscheduled or emergency vent
blowdowns could result in natural gas
supply disruptions, safety concerns, and
increased emissions. In response, the
EPA solicited comments on shutdown,
shut-in, and blowdown scenarios that
could result in technical, safety, and/or
environmental issues, as well as
suggestions for addressing them. See 82
FR 51793, November 8, 2017. The EPA
learned from the comments, through
additional specific examples, that the
requirement to complete delayed repairs
during an unscheduled or emergency
vent blowdown could lead to a number
of unintended negative consequences.
In particular, emissions from requiring
delayed repairs during an unscheduled
or emergency shutdown, shut-in, or vent
blowdown could result in greater
emissions than the leaks that are to be
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
repaired; as such, it could not possibly
reflect BSER for addressing fugitive
emissions at well sites and compressor
stations.
One commenter described
configurations at well sites that can lead
to an automatic emergency well shut-in
and where the rule, if applied as
suggested in the preamble, could have
unintended consequences.2 Where well
sites have a compressor that collects
flash gas from a low pressure separator
or a vapor recovery unit that collects
flash gas from storage vessels, there are
certain safety measures put in place in
the event these compressors
unexpectedly go offline. Depending on
the remoteness of the well site, one
safety measure available is to
automatically shut in the well to
prevent the release of gas from pressure
relief valves. In these, and other similar
emergency shut-in situations, the
equipment is not depressurized so the
well can be brought back into
production as soon as possible.
However, by requiring completion of the
delayed repair during such shut-in
events, equipment at this well site that
have components placed on delayed
repair would have to be depressurized
and blown down, resulting in emissions
that would not have occurred except for
the delayed repair requirement and
could be higher than the emissions from
continuing to delay repair.
Similar scenarios were provided by
the commenters for compressor stations,
where changes in horsepower demand,
upsets of the compressor unit or the
station, lightning strikes, power loss,
floods, unplanned maintenance or
repairs of a pipeline, fire, third-party
damage, or instrumentation outages can
result in unplanned or emergency
blowdowns of certain equipment at a
compressor station.3 When the
compressor station is not operating, gas
will continue to enter gathering lines
until upstream wells are routed to other
compressor stations. This gas must be
vented or flared to prevent
overpressurization of the gathering
lines. Repairs can require skilled labor
crews and custom fabricated parts, both
of which must be scheduled and
ordered in advance.4 Given the
unpredictability of these unplanned or
emergency events, gas may need to be
2 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12446.
3 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12447.
4 See Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12421, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12424, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12430, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0505–12436, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12446, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12447, and
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12454.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
vented or flared for an extended period
of time while the owner or operator
organized completion of delayed repairs
and before the compressor station is
brought back online, thereby creating
emissions that would not have occurred
except for the delayed repair
requirement and could be higher than
the emissions from continuing to delay
repair. For these reasons, not requiring
repair during unplanned or emergency
vent blowdowns would limit excess
emissions from avoidable blowdowns.
In addition to emissions from
avoidable blowdowns described above,
several commenters raised concerns
about extended gas service disruption.5
For example, many natural gas
transmission pipelines are operating
year-round at or near capacity, with
little redundancy in the supply chain.
Further, some regions do not have
access to alternate gas supplies. As we
have learned, the requirement for
delayed repairs during unplanned or
emergency blowdowns can result in the
unintended consequence of forcing
owners or operators to choose between
meeting contractual commitments
governed by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission or complying
with leak repair requirements.6 The
disruption to service can also result in
loss of home heating during the winter
and the loss of natural gas supply to
power plants during periods when
electricity demands are higher. This is
clearly an unintended and undesirable
result and should, therefore, be avoided,
as demonstrated by the leak repair
requirement by the California Air
Resource Board (CARB).7 We note that
CARB’s leak repair requirement, which
CARB commented as being more
stringent than the EPA’s leak repair
requirement in the 2016 Rule, does not
require repair, if it would disrupt
service.
After examining the comments and
supporting data on this issue, the EPA
agrees with the commenters that
delayed repairs should not be required
5 See Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12430, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12436, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12446, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0505–12447, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12454.
6 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12447.
7 Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude
Oil and Natural Gas Facilities, section 95669,
California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3,
Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article
4, Subarticle 13. Effective date October 1, 2017.
This regulation has a phase-in period from January
1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, where fugitive
emissions are defined as a leak of 10,000 parts per
million (ppm) or greater using EPA Method 21 on
a quarterly monitoring frequency. After January 1,
2020, that leak definition decreases to 1,000 ppm
on the same monitoring frequency.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10631
during an unscheduled or emergency
shutdown, shut-in, or vent blowdown
due to the potential unintended
consequences of further increasing the
emissions, in addition to disruption of
services. The EPA further concludes
that this issue must be addressed
immediately to avoid these unintended
consequences. Because the proposed 2year stay or proposed phase-in would
offer only a temporary relief from this
requirement, which the EPA has already
concluded to be unacceptable, the EPA
is not finalizing a stay or phase-in of
this requirement. Instead, the EPA is
taking final action to amend the delayed
repair requirement to remove the terms
‘‘unplanned’’ and ‘‘emergency’’ from the
list of events that would require
completion of delayed repairs.
B. Alaskan North Slope
We are finalizing amendments to the
fugitive emission monitoring
requirements for well sites located on
the Alaskan North Slope.8 New well
sites that startup production between
September and March must conduct
initial monitoring within 6 months of
the startup of production 9 or by June
30, whichever is later. Well sites that
startup production between April and
August must continue to meet the 60day initial monitoring requirement in
the 2016 Rule. Similarly, well sites that
are modified between September and
March must conduct initial monitoring
within 6 months of the first day of
production for each collection of
fugitive emissions components or by
June 30, whichever is later. Further, all
well sites located on the Alaskan North
Slope that are subject to the fugitive
emissions requirements must conduct
annual monitoring, instead of the
semiannual monitoring required for
other well sites. Subsequent annual
monitoring must be conducted at least
9 months apart, but no more than 12
months apart. The specific repair,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements remain unchanged from
the 2016 Rule, except as discussed in
section IV.A of this preamble.
Under the 2016 Rule, the initial
monitoring survey of fugitive emissions
components at a new well site must be
conducted within 60 days of startup of
production at the new well site. For a
collection of modified fugitive
emissions components, the initial
monitoring survey must be conducted
within 60 days of production after the
modification. The rule requires
8 Alaskan North Slope is defined in 40 CFR
60.5430a as.
9 Startup of production is defined in 40 CFR
60.5430a as.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
10632
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
semiannual monitoring thereafter. In
response to our NODA soliciting
additional comments and information
on implementation challenges, the EPA
received comments expressing
immediate concerns with the timing for
conducting fugitive emissions
monitoring at well sites on the Alaskan
North Slope. The commenters noted
that these concerns were raised in
comments on the proposed rule in 2015,
in addition to petitions for
reconsideration following promulgation
of the 2016 Rule. The commenters
cautioned that the monitoring
technology specified in the 2016 Rule
(i.e., optical gas imaging (OGI) and the
instruments for EPA Method 21) cannot
reliably detect methane emissions at
well sites on the Alaskan North Slope
for a significant portion of the year due
to the lengthy period of extreme cold
temperatures.10 According to
manufacturer specifications, OGI
cameras, which the EPA identified in
the 2016 Rule as the BSER for
monitoring fugitive emissions at well
sites, are not designed to operate at
temperatures below ¥4 °F,11 and the
monitoring instruments for EPA Method
21, which the 2016 Rule provides as an
alternative to OGI, are not designed to
operate below +14 °F.12 One commenter
provided data, and the EPA confirmed
with its own analysis, that temperatures
below 0 0F are a common occurrence,
on the Alaskan North Slope between
November and April.13 In light of the
above, there is no assurance that the
initial and semiannual monitoring that
must occur during that period of time
are technically feasible.
During the rulemaking for the 2016
Rule, in response to comments
expressing concerns with cold
temperatures in several regions, the EPA
had attempted to address the issue by
providing additional flexibility in the
form of allowing consecutive
semiannual events to take place every 4
to 6 months. However, as commenters
on the NODA correctly observed, the
EPA did not address the issue as it
relates to initial monitoring at well sites
10 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12434.
11 See FLIR Systems, Inc. product specifications
for GF300/320 model OGI cameras at https://
www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=55671.
12 See Thermo Fisher Scientific product
specification for TVA–2020 at https://
assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/
Specification-Sheets/EPM-TVA2020.pdf.
13 See information on average hourly
temperatures from January 2010 to January 2018 at
the weather station located at Deadhorse Alpine
Airstrip, Alaska. Obtained from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)’s National Centers for Environmental
Information and summarized in Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
on the Alaskan North Slope; further,
even with the additional flexibility,
semiannual monitoring at well sites
located on the Alaskan North Slope
could still be required at a time when
the temperature is below the operating
temperature of the monitoring
instruments.
In light of the technical feasibility
issue discussed previously, the EPA
concludes that the current fugitive
emissions monitoring frequencies for
well sites do not reflect the BSER for
monitoring fugitive emissions
components at well sites on the Alaskan
North Slope, and that a different fugitive
emissions monitoring schedule is
warranted for well sites located on the
Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, the
EPA has amended the 2016 Rule to
require that new or modified well sites
that startup production between
September and March conduct initial
monitoring within 6 months of the
startup of production or by June 30,
whichever is later. We believe that the
amendment would assure that initial
monitoring take place when both OGI
and EPA Method 21 are operable.
In addition, the EPA is amending the
2016 Rule to require annual (instead of
semiannual) monitoring of fugitive
emissions at well sites on the Alaskan
North Slope. During the rulemaking for
the 2016 Rule, the EPA had evaluated
annual monitoring at well sites and
concluded that semiannual monitoring
reflected the BSER for detecting fugitive
emissions at well sites. During the
rulemaking for the 2016 Rule, we stated
in response to a comment that there
would be months during the semiannual
monitoring periods when the OGI
camera could work effectively.14
However, after reconsidering the
information provided by commenters
and confirmed by the EPA, we now
conclude that monitoring may not be
technically feasible on the Alaskan
North Slope for close to 6 consecutive
months (November through April) due
to the extreme cold temperatures that
could render the monitoring
instruments inoperable. Therefore, the
EPA now concludes that annual
monitoring more accurately reflects the
BSER for monitoring fugitive emissions
at well sites on the Alaskan North Slope
because of the infeasibility of
semiannual monitoring. The
impracticability is demonstrated by the
following example. If initial monitoring
were conducted in August, the first
semiannual monitoring would be
required between December and
14 See Chapter 4 of the EPA’s Responses to Public
Comments, page 4–273 located at Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–7632.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
February. Based on average
temperatures during those months, it is
unlikely that semiannual monitoring
would be possible in this window.
Further, in order for well sites on the
Alaskan North Slope to conduct
semiannual monitoring, the monitoring
events would be limited to April/May
and October/November, which creates
additional difficulties with scheduling
monitoring, repairs, and resurveys
within the required periods.
The EPA concludes that the Alaskan
North Slope issue must be addressed
immediately given that we are currently
well into the cold weather months.
Because both the proposed 2-year stay
and the suggestion that we extend the
phase-in period for the fugitive
emissions requirements would offer
only temporary relief from the initial
and subsequent monitoring
requirements at well sites, which the
EPA has already concluded to be
inappropriate for the reasons stated
above, the EPA is not finalizing a stay
or a longer phase-in of these
requirements. Rather, the EPA is taking
final action to amend the 2016 Rule to
provide a separate fugitive emissions
monitoring schedule for well sites
located on the Alaskan North Slope to
accommodate its arctic climate.
V. Summary of Significant Comments
and Responses
The EPA received a large number of
comments covering a wide range of
topics in response to our June 16, 2017,
proposal and November 8, 2017, NODA.
As discussed in sections II and IV of this
preamble, the EPA is still in the process
of reviewing many of these comments.
As noted previously, however, in the
course of this review, the EPA has
identified two specific provisions of the
fugitive emissions requirements in the
2016 Rule that pose significant and
immediate compliance concerns, and
EPA is taking final action here to make
targeted amendments to the 2016 Rule
to address these two concerns. The
Agency is still evaluating comments
related to other issues raised in the
proposal and the NODA and is not
taking final action with respect to those
issues at this time. Accordingly, we are
not responding to those comments at
this time. This section summarizes the
significant comments relevant to the
amendments in this final action, and
our response to those comments.
A. The EPA’s Legal Authority
The EPA received numerous
comments on the legal authorities for its
proposal to stay certain requirements of
the 2016 Rule for 2 years and for the
alternative suggestion of providing
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
longer phase-in periods for those
requirements. Because this final rule
does not involve staying or phasing in
any requirement in the 2016 Rule,
comments specific to the proposed stay
and phase-in are deemed outside of the
scope of this final action. The EPA is,
therefore, not responding to these
comments and is not addressing
whether such authority exists.
This final rule amends two aspects of
the fugitive emissions requirements in
the 2016 Rule, which was promulgated
pursuant to the EPA’s authority to set
NSPS standards pursuant to CAA
section 111(b) according to the
procedures under CAA section 307(d).
Summarized below are significant
comments on the EPA’s authority under
CAA sections 111(b) and 307(d) to
amend a previously promulgated NSPS.
Comment: The EPA received general
comments on the EPA’s legal authority
to amend the 2016 Rule under CAA
section 111. One commenter stated that
any revisions to the 2016 Rule must
follow the substantive and procedural
requirements found in CAA section 111
and 307(d).15 In order the meet these
requirements and amend the NSPS, the
commenter stated that the EPA must
justify any revisions as being consistent
with the statutory mandate, explain the
basis for the revision (including
supporting record), and follow the
procedures established in CAA section
111(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B).
The commenters further described the
statute’s procedural requirements, such
as a thorough review of specific factors,
such as whether the standard reflects
BSER, ‘‘the cost of those standards, any
resulting nonair quality health and
environmental impacts, energy
requirements, the amount of air
pollution reduced by the standards, and
how the standards may drive
technological innovation.’’ 16 The
commenter stated that a revision to the
compliance date (as proposed) would
require a factual analysis that
demonstrated the new compliance date
reflected in the emission reductions
achievable through the BSER. Further,
the commenter stated that standards
must be promulgated that reflect
‘‘improved design and operational
advance’’ that may not yet be realized
by industry, ‘‘so long as there is
substantial evidence that such
improvements are feasible and will
15 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12451.
16 See 80 FR 64510, 64538 (October 23, 2015)
(quoting Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326,
347 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). See also 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), (h)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
produce the improved performance
necessary to meet the standard.’’ 17
The commenters further discussed the
holding in the National Association of
Home Builders case in 2012. ‘‘The fact
that the original [rule] was consistent
with congressional intent is irrelevant as
long as the amended rule is also
‘permissible under the statute.’ ’’ 18 In
that case, the petitioners acknowledged
that, although they believed the original
rule was better, the amended rule was
permissible. Oral Arg. Recording at
17:40-:43. As Fox made clear, that
‘‘suffices’’ as far as the court is
concerned. Fox, 556 U.S. at 515.
Further, as Fox noted, the Supreme
Court has ‘‘neither held nor implied that
every agency action representing a
policy change must be justified by
reasons more substantial than those
required to adopt a policy in first
instance.’’ Fox, 556 U.S. at 514 (citing
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of
the United States, Inc., et al., v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
et al., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983)). To the
contrary, according to the commenters,
the State Farm case affirmed that ‘‘[a]n
agency’s view of what is in the public
interest may change, either with or
without a change in circumstances.’’
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 57 (quoting
Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC,
444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir.1970)); see
Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., et al., 387
U.S. 397, 416 (1967) (declaring that an
agency, ‘‘in light of reconsideration of
the relevant facts and its mandate, may
alter its past interpretation and overturn
past administrative rulings’’). Nat’l
Ass’n of Home Builders, 682 F.3d at
1037.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
comment that it has authority to amend
an NSPS when it demonstrates that such
revision is consistent with the mandate
of section 111(b) of the CAA and
reasonably explain the basis for the
revision based on the record before the
Agency, as required by section 307(d) of
the CAA. The EPA has done so in this
final action and need not address at this
time if this is the sole source of
authority that the EPA may have to
amend or stay an NSPS.
A standard of performance
promulgated under section 111(b) of the
CAA must reflect the BSER for that
emission source. In the 2016 Rule, the
EPA conducted BSER analyses for
reducing fugitive emissions at well sites
17 See Sierra Club v. Costle 657 F.2d at 364 and
Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 190
(D.C. Cir. 2011).
18 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, et al., v. EPA,
682 F.3d 1032, 1037 (citing Fox, 556 U.S. at 515).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10633
and compressor stations, which resulted
in the work practice standards
promulgated in that rule. As explained
below in this section and elsewhere in
this notice, in the process of the current
rulemaking, the EPA has identified two
narrow provisions of the fugitive
emissions requirements that pose
immediate compliance concerns. The
first issue concerns the potential that
the current requirements for delayed
repairs could result in an increase
(instead of a reduction) of emissions and
service disruption. The other issue
concerns the technical feasibility of
complying with the timeframe specified
in the 2016 Rule for monitoring fugitive
emissions at well sites in the Alaskan
North Slope due to its extreme cold
temperature for a lengthy period of time,
which could render the monitoring
instrument inoperable. After examining
the comments and information on these
two specific concerns, we conclude that
the BSER and the resulting fugitive
emissions requirements in the 2016
Rule did not adequately address these
two compliance concerns and that
revision is warranted. The revision is
based on comments, data, and other
information submitted during the
rulemaking process, as well as our own
analyses, all of which can be found in
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0505. A more detailed discussion of our
revised analyses and amendment can be
found below in this section as well as
in section IV of this preamble.
B. Delayed Repairs
Comment: Twelve commenters
provided information related to the
requirements for delayed repairs in 40
CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. Ten
commenters 19 supported a stay and/or
suggested specific changes to the
regulation to address repairs during
unplanned and emergency vent
blowdowns, while two commenters 20
opposed any changes to the requirement
for delayed repairs.
The commenters that supported
changes reiterated comments contained
in their petitions for reconsideration
following the promulgation of the 2016
19 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12417, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12421, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12422, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12424, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12430, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12436, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12446, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12447, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12454, and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0505–12456.
20 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12444, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12451 (part 1 of comments), and Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12452 (part 2 of
comments).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
10634
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Rule. The commenters stated that by
requiring repairs during unplanned or
emergency events, the actual emissions
could be higher than the emissions of
the delayed repair for that component.
For instance, requiring repairs during
unplanned or emergency events may
require venting of equipment that is not
being repaired and that would not
otherwise be vented during that
shutdown, potentially resulting in
emissions much larger than those of the
leak itself. Further, the commenters
asserted that prolonged shutdowns may
be encountered while repairs are made,
which would affect both upstream and
downstream users. Specifically, these
repairs could result in the need to vent
or flare gas upstream at a production
facility if the midstream compressor
station has to remain offline. Further,
gas supply could be limited for
downstream users, causing critical
issues with the provision of power or
heat to end users reliance on natural
gas.
One commenter 21 provided specific
data regarding components monitored
under the fugitive program in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOOOa. The
commenter references an evaluation
performed on 22 of their compressor
stations. This evaluation showed that
95-percent of all leaks (345 of 362 leaks)
occurring at these stations between 2015
and 2017 were repaired within 30 days,
leaving only 5-percent to be placed on
a delayed repair. When repair was
delayed, most repairs were completed
within 90 days of leak detection. Two
commenters 22 suggested specific edits
to the regulation. Specifically, these
edits remove reference to the
requirement for repairs to be completed
during unscheduled, planned, or
emergency vent blowdowns and limits
repairs at compressor stations to
scheduled shutdowns for maintenance.
Further, these commenters suggested
additional language to require
additional justification for delaying
repairs beyond a shutdown, requiring
Administrator approval on a case-bycase basis. Additional comments and
information are discussed in section IV
of this preamble.
In contrast, the two commenters that
opposed changes to the delayed repair
requirements cited a lack of information
to support either a stay or compliance
deadline extension. One commenter 23
21 See
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12430.
22 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12421 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0505–12447.
23 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12451 (part 1 of comments) and Docket ID No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
suggests that since the leaks for which
repairs are delayed were found prior to
any shutdown (whether planned or not),
the company had time to make
arrangements to obtain replacement
parts; thus, allowing repair during that
next shutdown event. Further, the
commenter asserted that the EPA has
provided no data to demonstrate why a
stay is necessary for the entire fugitive
program to accommodate such a small
set of leaks given that the data the EPA
does have suggests the majority of leaks
are repaired at the time of the
monitoring survey. Another
commenter 24 asserted that the
requirement for delayed repairs is more
accommodating than it needs to be
when compared to the requirements
found in California’s rule. The
commenter explained, ‘‘California’s
regulation requires leaks to be repaired
within 14 calendar days, except for
leaks involving critical components,
which must be repaired by the end of
the next process shutdown or within 12
months, whichever is sooner.’’
Response: The EPA is amending the
requirements for delayed repair in this
final action. Specifically, the EPA is
removing the terms ‘‘unplanned’’ and
‘‘emergency,’’ used in reference to vent
blowdowns and added the term
‘‘scheduled’’ before the list of scenarios
when delayed repair must be
completed. As several commenters
noted and as discussed in section IV.A
of this preamble, completion of repair
during an unscheduled or emergency
event could require a blowdown of
equipment that was not otherwise
necessary in order to repair components
on delayed repair. Due to the potential
for increasing emissions, the current
requirements for delayed repair do not
reflect the BSER for addressing fugitive
emissions at well sites and compressor
stations. In addition, as discussed in
section IV.A of this preamble, not
requiring delayed repair during
unscheduled vent blowdowns would
avoid the potential of service
disruption. As mentioned in section
IV.A of this preamble, we note that
under CARB’s leak repair
requirements,25 delayed repair is
permitted if gas service is critical to
public gas system operation; thereby,
highlighting the importance of not
disrupting gas service. According to the
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–12452 (part 2 of
comments).
24 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12444.
25 Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude
Oil and Natural Gas Facilities, section 95669,
California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3,
Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article
4, Subarticle 13. Effective date October 1, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
data received, only around 5-percent of
leaks are placed on delay for repair.
Further, unscheduled or emergency vent
blowdowns are but one of many
scenarios where delayed repair must be
completed. Owners or operators are still
required to complete repairs on
components during the next scheduled
compressor station shutdown, well
shutdown, well shut-in, after a planned
vent blowdown, or within 2 years,
whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the
requirement for delayed repair, as
amended, still requires that repairs
occur as soon as possible while
reducing the potential for unintended
emissions releases and service
disruptions.
As discussed earlier, this issue must
be addressed immediately to avoid
potentially increasing emissions and/or
disrupting gas supply. The EPA
acknowledges that there are other
comments concerning other aspects of
the requirements for delayed repair in
the fugitive emissions requirements, and
that the EPA continues to evaluate these
comments. Should any of these
comments warrant additional changes to
the fugitive requirements, the EPA
intends to address them separately.
C. Alaskan North Slope
Comment: Three commenters 26
provided comments related to
compliance with the fugitive emissions
monitoring requirements in extreme
cold weather conditions. These
comments related to the limitations of
the monitoring technologies and worker
safety concerns. The commenters stated
that the EPA should exempt well sites
and compressor stations located on the
Alaskan North Slope from the fugitive
emissions monitoring requirements. At
a minimum, two commenters stated that
the EPA should stay or extend the
compliance deadline for initial
monitoring at these well sites.
Additionally, two commenters stated
that extreme cold weather conditions
can occur outside of the Alaskan North
Slope and these commenters requested
similar stays or extensions of the
compliance deadlines for any location
experiencing these conditions. The
commenters reiterated comments
submitted in the 2015 proposal and
subsequent petitions for
reconsideration. Specifically, the
commenters stated the technological
limitations and worker safety
considerations in the Arctic
26 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12434, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12436, and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0505–12446.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
environment warrant an exemption
from monitoring.
One commenter provided
manufacturer specifications for three of
the commonly used monitoring
instruments (OGI camera, toxic vapor
analyzer (TVA), and multi gas
monitors).27 The commenter noted that
the specifications indicate the lowest
operating temperature for any of the
instruments is ¥4 °F.28 This commenter
further provided average hourly
temperature by month for the years 2012
through 2014. This data indicated that
average hourly temperatures on the
Alaskan North Slope were below ¥4 °F
for approximately 5 months (December
through April). Three commenters
stated that while there is a waiver from
quarterly monitoring at compressor
stations when average temperatures are
below 0 °F for 2 consecutive months,
there is no similar waiver for
semiannual monitoring well sites, nor a
waiver from initial monitoring at either
well sites or compressor stations. The
commenters, therefore, stated the
combination of average hourly
temperatures on the Alaskan North
Slope and the operating limitations of
the monitoring instruments pose
immediate compliance implications.
Finally, two of the commenters stated
that the EPA should exempt well sites
and compressor stations located on the
Alaskan North Slope from fugitive
emissions monitoring similar to the
exemptions from leak detection and
repair at natural gas processing plants
provided in NSPS OOOO and
OOOOa.29 These commenters stated the
reasons for applying an exemption to
the natural gas processing plants are
also valid for well sites and compressor
stations.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenters that available monitoring
technologies (OGI and, for EPA Method
21, TVA and multi gas meters) are not
designed to operate below ¥4 °F or +14
°F, respectively.30 In addition to the
information provided by the
commenters, information from the
NOAA demonstrate average
temperatures on the Alaskan North
Slope make it technically infeasible to
27 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12434.
28 See FLIR Systems, Inc. Product specifications
for GF300/320 model OGI cameras at https://
www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=55671.
29 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12434 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0505–12446.
30 See FLIR Systems, Inc. product specifications
for GF300/320 model OGI cameras at https://
www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=55671 and Thermo
Fisher Scientific product specification for TVA–
2020 at https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/
LSG/Specification-Sheets/EPM-TVA2020.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
perform monitoring during a nearly 6month period.31 As we are already well
within this period, the EPA must act
immediately to avoid requiring fugitive
emissions monitoring at well sites
located on the Alaskan North Slope
when the average temperature there is
below the operating temperature of any
of the available monitoring instruments.
Therefore, the EPA is amending 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOOOa, to extend the
initial monitoring deadline and allow
annual fugitive emissions monitoring at
well sites located on the Alaskan North
Slope. The EPA is not amending 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOOOa, fugitive
emissions monitoring requirements for
compressor stations located on the
Alaskan North Slope because the
commenters have stated there are no
compressor stations currently subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa;
therefore, there is no immediate
compliance concern to address for these
requirements at this time.32
As the commenters noted, the issues
with conducting fugitive emissions
monitoring at well sites located on the
Alaskan North Slope were raised in the
comments on the proposed 40 CFR part
60, subpart OOOOa. In the EPA’s
responses to public comments on this
issue, the EPA stated that specific
flexibilities were added to the fugitive
emissions monitoring program to avoid
potential compliance concerns on the
Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, the
repair deadline was extended from 15 to
30 days, with an additional 30 days to
complete the resurvey after repair;
semiannual monitoring at well sites is
allowed every 4 to 6 months; when
average temperatures are below 0 °F for
2 consecutive months, quarterly
monitoring is waived at compressor
stations, and Method 21 was added as
an alternative method for leak detection
and resurvey.33 As one commenter
noted, the EPA recognized the
challenges with monitoring instrument
operation at low temperatures for
compressor stations, but did not extend
a similar waiver from monitoring for
well sites.34 Further, it is not clear that
31 See information on average hourly
temperatures from January 2010 to January 2018 at
the weather station located at Deadhorse Alpine
Airstrip, Alaska. Obtained from NOAA’s National
Centers for Environmental Information and
summarized in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0505.
32 See ‘‘Discussion of Comment Submitted on the
NODA with ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’’ located at
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505.
33 See ‘‘EPA’s Responses to Public Comments,’’
Chapter 4, pages 4–267, 4–268, 4–273, and 4–276.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQOAR-2010-0505-7632.
34 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
12446.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10635
the flexibilities identified above assure
that monitoring would not be required
when the temperature on the Alaskan
North Slope is below the operating
temperature of the monitoring
instrument. The commenters reiterated
this concern in the comments on the
proposed stay and NODA.
We revisited the issue and reviewed
both the relevant record for the 2016
Rule as well as additional information
received subsequent to the rulemaking.
Based on this evaluation, we recognized
that a separate initial monitoring
requirement was necessary for well sites
that startup production during the
months when it may be technically
infeasible to meet the 60-day initial
monitoring requirement.
For instance, we examined the
scenario of a new well starting
production in September. Under the
current requirements, the initial
monitoring survey would be required
within 60 days of the startup of
production. This would put the
deadline in October or November,
depending on when the well started
producing in September.35 The EPA
recognized from the data provided that
these 2 months may have issues with
the feasibility of completing monitoring
due to changing weather conditions
moving into winter. If we set a deadline
for initial monitoring 6 months from
startup of production, then monitoring
would be required by March, when
temperatures are still not warm enough
for instrument operation. While the
average temperatures may be
sufficiently warm starting in the middle
of spring, information discussed in the
Response to Comments document raised
concerns with melting snow, flooding,
and transportation issues during this
time.36 Additionally, we are concerned
with potentially constraining affected
sources’ ability to schedule and acquire
requisite personnel and equipment if we
were to require all well sites that start
production between September and
March to conduct initial monitoring in
April or May. These well sites would
forever be locked into performing both
initial and all subsequent monitoring at
the same time each year. We do not
believe that it is appropriate to place
such constraint on the well site’s ability
to schedule monitoring events. Based on
average temperatures, we are confident
that monitoring can occur during the
35 Similar issues are realized by well sites starting
up between October and March, such as extreme
low temperatures, concerns with snow melt and
flooding, and logistical issues associated with
schedule flexibility.
36 See ‘‘EPA’s Responses to Public Comments,’’
Chapter 4, page 4–268. https://www.regulations.
gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7632.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
10636
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
summer months. Therefore, we have
amended the 2016 Rule to require that,
for each new or modified well site
located on the Alaskan North Slope that
starts production between September
and March, the owner or operator has 6
months, or until June 30, whichever is
later, to complete initial monitoring of
the fugitive emissions components. The
amendments, which provide both a time
frame and specific date, would require
monitoring as soon as feasible while
avoiding the concerns described above.
For each new or modified well site
located on the Alaskan North Slope that
starts production between September
and March, the owner or operator has 6
months, or until June 30, whichever is
later to complete initial monitoring of
the fugitive emissions components.
The EPA agrees with the commenters
that there are immediate compliance
concerns due to the operating
limitations of monitoring instruments.
Therefore, we are finalizing an
amendment to the timeframe for the
fugitive emission monitoring program
for well sites located on the Alaskan
North Slope. Specifically, owners or
operators must meet the initial
compliance deadline of 60 days from
the startup of production, unless the
well site starts production between
September and March. Those well sites
that startup production between
September and March must complete
initial monitoring within 6 months of
startup of production or by June 30,
whichever is later. Additionally, owners
or operators must perform annual
monitoring for fugitive emissions,
following the initial monitoring survey
at all affected well sites located on the
Alaskan North Slope, regardless of the
startup date. Subsequent monitoring
surveys must occur at least every 12
months, with consecutive monitoring
surveys conducted at least 9 months
apart. The requirements for repair,
recordkeeping, and reporting remain the
same as those in the 2016 Rule.
Recognizing there are several months in
which temperatures are within the
operating temperature range for the
monitoring instruments, the EPA
concludes owners or operators have
enough flexibility to complete
monitoring surveys in this timeframe.
Any further amendments for the
Alaskan North Slope will be addressed
separately. This amendment only
applies at well sites located on the
Alaskan North Slope. All other well
sites must continue to comply with the
initial, semiannual, or quarterly
monitoring requirements, as
appropriate.
With respect to comments on
exempting facilities located on the
Alaskan North Slope from fugitive
monitoring requirements, changes to
low temperature waivers, or any other
concerns raised by the commenters
related to cold weather, addressing them
will likely require additional
information and analysis. The EPA will
continue evaluating these comments.
VI. Impacts of the Final Amendments
Although there will be cost savings
related to not requiring delayed repairs
during unscheduled or emergency
events, as well as forgone benefits
related to the reductions of fugitive
emissions that might have occurred
following these repairs, the EPA does
not have cost or economic data related
to this provision because of the
unplanned nature of these events.
Therefore, we are unable to determine
the cost savings or forgone benefits of
amending the requirements for delayed
repair requirement related to
unscheduled or emergency events.
In order to determine the impacts of
the amendments to the fugitive
emissions requirements for well sites
located on the Alaskan North Slope, we
used the same assumptions and
methods used to estimate impacts of the
2016 Rule. Specifically, we used the
number of affected sources located on
the Alaskan North Slope, and the cost
and emission reductions estimated for
well sites at semiannual and annual
fugitive monitoring frequencies that
were assumed in the 2016 Rule. The
cost savings and emission reductions
estimated as a result of these
amendments are presented in Tables 2
and 3, respectively. For more
information on the assumptions used in
this analysis, as well as the costs and
emission reductions for fugitive
emissions requirements at well sites, see
the Background Technical Support
Document for the Final New Source
Performance Standards 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOOa (TSD) located at Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505–
7631. Note that the costs in the TSD are
in 2012 dollar years, and the cost
savings presented here are in 2016
dollar years. The amended fugitive
monitoring requirements for well sites
located on the Alaskan North Slope will
save approximately $24,000 per year in
compliance costs, after accounting for
forgone natural gas recovery. This
amendment will also result in
approximately 34 short tons of forgone
methane emission reductions, or 772
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2E).
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS OF THE AMENDED FUGITIVE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ON THE ALASKAN NORTH
SLOPE
Compliance cost savings
Capital cost
savings
Annual
operating
cost savings
Total annualized cost savings
(3%)
Forgone
product
recovery
W/o
product
recovery
Total annualized cost savings
(7%)
W/Product
recovery
W/o product
recovery
W/Product
recovery
$1,300
110
$29,000
2,400
$6,700
210
$29,000
2,400
$22,000
2,200
$29,000
2,400
$22,000
2,200
Total ......................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
NG Well Pads ..............
Oil Well Pads ...............
1,400
31,000
6,900
31,000
24,000
31,000
24,000
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED FORGONE EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF THE AMENDED FUGITIVE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ON THE
ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE
Forgone emission reductions
Affected
source count
NG Well Pads ..........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
Methane
(short tpy 1)
30
PO 00000
Frm 00084
33
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
VOC
(tpy)
HAP
(tpy)
9
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
Forgone
natural gas
savings
(Mcf 2)
CO2E
(tpy)
0
12MRR1
748
1,911
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
10637
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED FORGONE EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF THE AMENDED FUGITIVE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ON THE
ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE—Continued
Forgone emission reductions
Affected
source count
VOC
(tpy)
Methane
(short tpy 1)
Forgone
natural gas
savings
(Mcf 2)
CO2E
(tpy)
HAP
(tpy)
Oil Well Pads ...........................................
3
1
0
0
24
61
Total ..................................................
33
34
9
0
772
1,972
1 tons
per year.
2 thousand cubic feet.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is considered an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides
meaningful burden reduction by
amending the requirement that
components on a delayed repair must
conduct repairs during unscheduled or
emergency vent blowdowns, and adding
flexibilities for the monitoring survey
requirements for well sites located on
the Alaskan North Slope.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. The information collection
requirements in the final 40 CFR part
60, subpart OOOOa have been
submitted for approval to the OMB
under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by the EPA has been assigned
EPA ICR 2523.01. This action does not
result in changes to the submitted ICR
for 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa, so
the information collection estimates of
project cost and hour burdens have not
been revised.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
impact on small entities. An Agency
may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action
finalizes amendments for two specific
requirements in the 2016 Rule. This
action will not increase the burden on
small entities subject to this rule. The
EPA prepared a final RFA analysis for
the 2016 Rule, which is available as part
of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the
docket at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0505–7630. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action finalizes
amendments for two specific
requirements in the 2016 Rule. Any
impacts on children’s health caused by
the amendments in the rule will be
limited, because the scope of the
amendments is limited. The Agency,
therefore, concludes it is more
appropriate to determine the impact on
children’s health in the context of any
substantive changes potentially
proposed in the future as part of the
reconsideration of the 2016 Rule (as
granted on April 18, 2017).
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The basis for this determination can be
found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
This action finalizes amendments for
two specific requirements in the 2016
Rule. Any impacts on minority
populations and low-income
populations caused by the amendments
in the rule will be limited, because the
scope of the amendments is limited. The
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
10638
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Agency, therefore, concludes it is more
appropriate to determine the impact on
minority populations and low-income
populations in the context of any
substantive changes potentially
proposed in the future as part of the
reconsideration of the 2016 Rule (as
granted on April 18, 2017).
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping.
Dated: February 23, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart OOOOa—Standards of
Performance for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Facilities for Which Construction,
Modification or Reconstruction
Commenced After September 18, 2015
2. Section 60.5397a is amended by
revising paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(1) and (2),
and (h)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 60.5397a What fugitive emissions GHG
and VOC standards apply to the affected
facility which is the collection of fugitive
emissions components at a well site and
the affected facility which is the collection
of fugitive emissions components at a
compressor station?
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) (1) You must conduct an initial
monitoring survey within 60 days of the
startup of production, as defined in
§ 60.5430a, for each collection of
fugitive emissions components at a new
well site or by June 3, 2017, whichever
is later. For a modified collection of
fugitive emissions components at a well
site, the initial monitoring survey must
be conducted within 60 days of the first
day of production for each collection of
fugitive emission components after the
modification or by June 3, 2017,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:01 Mar 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
whichever is later. Notwithstanding the
preceding deadlines, for each collection
of fugitive emissions components at a
well site located on the Alaskan North
Slope, as defined in § 60.5430a, that
starts up production between September
and March, you must conduct an initial
monitoring survey within 6 months of
the startup of production for a new well
site, within 6 months of the first day of
production after a modification of the
collection of fugitive emission
components, or by the following June
30, whichever is later.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) Except as provided herein, a
monitoring survey of each collection of
fugitive emissions components at a well
site within a company-defined area
must be conducted at least
semiannually after the initial survey.
Consecutive semiannual monitoring
surveys must be conducted at least 4
months apart. A monitoring survey of
each collection of fugitive emissions
components at a well site located on the
Alaskan North Slope must be conducted
at least annually. Consecutive annual
monitoring surveys must be conducted
at least 9 months apart.
(2) A monitoring survey of the
collection of fugitive emissions
components at a compressor station
within a company-defined area must be
conducted at least quarterly after the
initial survey. Consecutive quarterly
monitoring surveys must be conducted
at least 60 days apart.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) If the repair or replacement is
technically infeasible, would require a
vent blowdown, a compressor station
shutdown, a well shutdown or well
shut-in, or would be unsafe to repair
during operation of the unit, the repair
or replacement must be completed
during the next scheduled compressor
station shutdown, well shutdown, well
shut-in, after a planned vent blowdown
or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–04431 Filed 3–9–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2018–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8521]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule identifies
communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
subsequent date.
DATES: The effective date of each
community’s scheduled suspension is
the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the
third column of the tables in this
rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: Information identifying the
current participation status of a
community can be obtained from
FEMA’s Community Status Book
(CSB).The CSB is available at https://
www.fema.gov/national-floodinsurance-program-community-statusbook.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact Adrienne L.
Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 400 C
Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202)
212–3966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not
otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities
agree to adopt and administer local
floodplain management measures aimed
at protecting lives and new construction
from future flooding. Section 1315 of
the National Flood Insurance Act of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10628-10638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04431]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9975-10-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT59
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments of certain requirements that
are contained within the final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas
Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified
Sources,'' published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (2016
Rule). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments of two narrow provisions of the requirements for the
collection of fugitive emission components at well sites and compressor
stations: Removes the requirement for completion of delayed repair
during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns, and provides separate
monitoring requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North
Slope.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publically 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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Karen Marsh, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1065; email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is presented as
follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary of Final Action
A. Delayed Repairs
B. Alaskan North Slope
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
A. The EPA's Legal Authority
B. Delayed Repairs
C. Alaskan North Slope
VI. Impacts of the Final Amendments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive
[[Page 10629]]
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:
Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction.
211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.
221210 Natural Gas Distribution.
486110 Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil.
486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.
Federal government.......... Not affected.
State/local/tribal Not affected.
government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria found in the final rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble, your delegated authority, or your EPA
Regional representative listed in 40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the final action is available on the internet. Following signature by
the Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at
https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry. Additional information is also available at the same website.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by May 11, 2018. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further
provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.''
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA 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, EPA WJC West 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.
II. Background
On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled ``Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources; Final Rule,'' at 81 FR 35824 (``2016 Rule''). The
2016 Rule established new source performance standards (NSPS) for
greenhouse gas and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the
oil and natural gas sector. This rule addressed, among other things,
fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations (``fugitive
emissions requirements'') and emissions from pneumatic pumps. In
addition, for a number of affected facilities (i.e., centrifugal
compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage
vessels), the rule required certification by a professional engineer of
the closed vent system design and capacity, as well as any technical
infeasibility determination relative to controlling pneumatic pumps at
well sites. For further information on the 2016 Rule, see 81 FR 35824
(June 3, 2016) and associated Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. A
number of states and industry associations sought judicial review of
the rule, and the litigation is currently being held in abeyance. In
addition, the EPA received a number of petitions for administrative
reconsideration of the rule and on April 18, 2017, convened a
proceeding to reconsider certain aspects of the rule, including those
related to the above three requirements.
On June 16, 2017, the EPA proposed to stay the fugitive emissions
requirements, the well site pneumatic pump requirements, and the
requirements for certification of closed vent systems by a professional
engineer for 2 years. The EPA proposed the stay of these requirements
in order to provide the EPA with sufficient time to propose, take
public comment on, and issue a final action on the issues under
[[Page 10630]]
reconsideration. See 82 FR 27645 (June 16, 2017). On November 8, 2017,
the EPA issued a notice of data availability (NODA), in which the EPA
offered additional information in further support of the proposed stay
and solicited comments on a suggestion from stakeholders to allow
additional time to phase in these requirements as opposed to a stay.
See 82 FR 51788 (November 8, 2017). Additionally, the NODA solicited
comment and information on several implementation challenges raised by
stakeholders. In particular, the EPA broadly solicited comments on
issues associated with the requirement to complete repairs on
components on a delay of repair (hereinafter referred to as ``delayed
repair'' for short in this notice) \1\ during emergency or unscheduled
shutdowns or vent blowdowns and suggestions for addressing the issues.
See 82 FR 51793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 60.5397a(h)(2) for delay of repair requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received a broad range of comments and information in response
to the proposed stay and the NODA. Relevant to this action is
information regarding two specific provisions of the fugitive emissions
requirements that we have concluded present immediate compliance
concerns: (1) The requirement that delayed repairs must be completed
during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns that occur within the 2-
year repair timeframe and prior to other scheduled events, and (2) the
monitoring survey requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan
North Slope. See section IV of this preamble for a discussion of these
concerns and these final amendments. The Agency is still examining
comments related to all other issues raised in the proposal and NODA,
including other issues related to delayed repair and the Alaskan North
Slope, and is not taking final action with respect to these other
matters in this final action.
III. Legal Authority
The legal authority for this final action, which amends two narrow
provisions of the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule, is
the same as that for the promulgation of the 2016 Rule. The EPA
promulgated the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA,
which requires the EPA to issue ``standards of performance'' for new
sources in the list of categories of stationary sources that cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. See 81 FR 35828. CAA
section 111(a)(1) defines ``a standard of performance'' as ``a standard
for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving
such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact
and energy requirement) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated.'' This definition makes clear that the
standard of performance must be based on controls that constitute ``the
best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated.'' The
standard that the EPA develops, based on the best system of emission
reduction (BSER), is commonly a numerical emissions limit, expressed as
a performance level (e.g., a rate-based standard). However, CAA section
111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a work practice
standard or other requirements, which reflects the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction, if it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emissions standard. The work practice standards
for fugitive emissions from well sites and compressor stations were
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 111(h)(1)(A). See 81 FR 35829.
Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and
to revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (``State
Farm''). ``The power to decide in the first instance carries with it
the power to reconsider.'' Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084,
1086 (10th Cir. 1980); see also, United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery
Properties, Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1965); Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562
F.2d 701, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Accordingly, in this final rule, the
EPA is using the same statutory authority in promulgating the 2016 Rule
to amend two provisions of the fugitive emissions requirements in the
2016 Rule. As explained below in section IV, with these two narrowly
tailored amendments, the fugitive emissions requirements better reflect
BSER for reducing fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor
stations.
IV. Summary of Final Action
The EPA is finalizing amendments to two fugitive emissions
requirements: (1) The requirements for delayed repairs, and (2) the
monitoring survey requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan
North Slope.
A. Delayed Repairs
In this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the
requirements related to delayed repairs. Specifically, the final rule
removes the requirement for completion of delayed repairs during
unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns. Owners and operators are still
required to complete repairs during the next compressor station
shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in, after a planned vent blowdown,
or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.
The 2016 Rule requires replacement or repair of a component within
30 days of detection of fugitive emissions, but allows delaying the
replacement/repair under certain situations specified in the rule.
Specifically, the rule requires that the delayed repair ``must be
completed during the next compressor station shutdown, well shutdown,
well shut-in, after an unscheduled, planned or emergency vent blowdown
or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.'' See 40 CFR 60.5397a(h)(2).
While the only unscheduled and emergency event specified in this
regulation is with regard to vent blowdown, the EPA stated in the
preamble to the 2016 Rule that ``if an unscheduled or emergency vent
blowdown, compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, or well shut-in
occurs during the delay of repair period, the fugitive emissions
components would need to be fixed at that time.'' See 81 FR 35858, June
3, 2016. This preamble language implied that delayed repairs were
required if any of these events occurred, regardless of whether it was
planned. As mentioned previously, the EPA discussed in the NODA
stakeholder feedback that requiring repair or replacement of fugitive
emissions components during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns
could result in natural gas supply disruptions, safety concerns, and
increased emissions. In response, the EPA solicited comments on
shutdown, shut-in, and blowdown scenarios that could result in
technical, safety, and/or environmental issues, as well as suggestions
for addressing them. See 82 FR 51793, November 8, 2017. The EPA learned
from the comments, through additional specific examples, that the
requirement to complete delayed repairs during an unscheduled or
emergency vent blowdown could lead to a number of unintended negative
consequences. In particular, emissions from requiring delayed repairs
during an unscheduled or emergency shutdown, shut-in, or vent blowdown
could result in greater emissions than the leaks that are to be
[[Page 10631]]
repaired; as such, it could not possibly reflect BSER for addressing
fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations.
One commenter described configurations at well sites that can lead
to an automatic emergency well shut-in and where the rule, if applied
as suggested in the preamble, could have unintended consequences.\2\
Where well sites have a compressor that collects flash gas from a low
pressure separator or a vapor recovery unit that collects flash gas
from storage vessels, there are certain safety measures put in place in
the event these compressors unexpectedly go offline. Depending on the
remoteness of the well site, one safety measure available is to
automatically shut in the well to prevent the release of gas from
pressure relief valves. In these, and other similar emergency shut-in
situations, the equipment is not depressurized so the well can be
brought back into production as soon as possible. However, by requiring
completion of the delayed repair during such shut-in events, equipment
at this well site that have components placed on delayed repair would
have to be depressurized and blown down, resulting in emissions that
would not have occurred except for the delayed repair requirement and
could be higher than the emissions from continuing to delay repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar scenarios were provided by the commenters for compressor
stations, where changes in horsepower demand, upsets of the compressor
unit or the station, lightning strikes, power loss, floods, unplanned
maintenance or repairs of a pipeline, fire, third-party damage, or
instrumentation outages can result in unplanned or emergency blowdowns
of certain equipment at a compressor station.\3\ When the compressor
station is not operating, gas will continue to enter gathering lines
until upstream wells are routed to other compressor stations. This gas
must be vented or flared to prevent overpressurization of the gathering
lines. Repairs can require skilled labor crews and custom fabricated
parts, both of which must be scheduled and ordered in advance.\4\ Given
the unpredictability of these unplanned or emergency events, gas may
need to be vented or flared for an extended period of time while the
owner or operator organized completion of delayed repairs and before
the compressor station is brought back online, thereby creating
emissions that would not have occurred except for the delayed repair
requirement and could be higher than the emissions from continuing to
delay repair. For these reasons, not requiring repair during unplanned
or emergency vent blowdowns would limit excess emissions from avoidable
blowdowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12447.
\4\ See Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12421, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505-12424, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12430, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-
12436, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12446, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12447, and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to emissions from avoidable blowdowns described above,
several commenters raised concerns about extended gas service
disruption.\5\ For example, many natural gas transmission pipelines are
operating year-round at or near capacity, with little redundancy in the
supply chain. Further, some regions do not have access to alternate gas
supplies. As we have learned, the requirement for delayed repairs
during unplanned or emergency blowdowns can result in the unintended
consequence of forcing owners or operators to choose between meeting
contractual commitments governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission or complying with leak repair requirements.\6\ The
disruption to service can also result in loss of home heating during
the winter and the loss of natural gas supply to power plants during
periods when electricity demands are higher. This is clearly an
unintended and undesirable result and should, therefore, be avoided, as
demonstrated by the leak repair requirement by the California Air
Resource Board (CARB).\7\ We note that CARB's leak repair requirement,
which CARB commented as being more stringent than the EPA's leak repair
requirement in the 2016 Rule, does not require repair, if it would
disrupt service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12430, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505-12436, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12446, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-
12447, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12454.
\6\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12447.
\7\ Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Facilities, section 95669, California Code of Regulations, Title
17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 4,
Subarticle 13. Effective date October 1, 2017. This regulation has a
phase-in period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, where
fugitive emissions are defined as a leak of 10,000 parts per million
(ppm) or greater using EPA Method 21 on a quarterly monitoring
frequency. After January 1, 2020, that leak definition decreases to
1,000 ppm on the same monitoring frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After examining the comments and supporting data on this issue, the
EPA agrees with the commenters that delayed repairs should not be
required during an unscheduled or emergency shutdown, shut-in, or vent
blowdown due to the potential unintended consequences of further
increasing the emissions, in addition to disruption of services. The
EPA further concludes that this issue must be addressed immediately to
avoid these unintended consequences. Because the proposed 2-year stay
or proposed phase-in would offer only a temporary relief from this
requirement, which the EPA has already concluded to be unacceptable,
the EPA is not finalizing a stay or phase-in of this requirement.
Instead, the EPA is taking final action to amend the delayed repair
requirement to remove the terms ``unplanned'' and ``emergency'' from
the list of events that would require completion of delayed repairs.
B. Alaskan North Slope
We are finalizing amendments to the fugitive emission monitoring
requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope.\8\ New
well sites that startup production between September and March must
conduct initial monitoring within 6 months of the startup of production
\9\ or by June 30, whichever is later. Well sites that startup
production between April and August must continue to meet the 60-day
initial monitoring requirement in the 2016 Rule. Similarly, well sites
that are modified between September and March must conduct initial
monitoring within 6 months of the first day of production for each
collection of fugitive emissions components or by June 30, whichever is
later. Further, all well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope that
are subject to the fugitive emissions requirements must conduct annual
monitoring, instead of the semiannual monitoring required for other
well sites. Subsequent annual monitoring must be conducted at least 9
months apart, but no more than 12 months apart. The specific repair,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements remain unchanged from the
2016 Rule, except as discussed in section IV.A of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Alaskan North Slope is defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a as.
\9\ Startup of production is defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a as.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the 2016 Rule, the initial monitoring survey of fugitive
emissions components at a new well site must be conducted within 60
days of startup of production at the new well site. For a collection of
modified fugitive emissions components, the initial monitoring survey
must be conducted within 60 days of production after the modification.
The rule requires
[[Page 10632]]
semiannual monitoring thereafter. In response to our NODA soliciting
additional comments and information on implementation challenges, the
EPA received comments expressing immediate concerns with the timing for
conducting fugitive emissions monitoring at well sites on the Alaskan
North Slope. The commenters noted that these concerns were raised in
comments on the proposed rule in 2015, in addition to petitions for
reconsideration following promulgation of the 2016 Rule. The commenters
cautioned that the monitoring technology specified in the 2016 Rule
(i.e., optical gas imaging (OGI) and the instruments for EPA Method 21)
cannot reliably detect methane emissions at well sites on the Alaskan
North Slope for a significant portion of the year due to the lengthy
period of extreme cold temperatures.\10\ According to manufacturer
specifications, OGI cameras, which the EPA identified in the 2016 Rule
as the BSER for monitoring fugitive emissions at well sites, are not
designed to operate at temperatures below
-4[emsp14][deg]F,\11\ and the monitoring instruments for EPA
Method 21, which the 2016 Rule provides as an alternative to OGI, are
not designed to operate below +14[emsp14][deg]F.\12\ One commenter
provided data, and the EPA confirmed with its own analysis, that
temperatures below 0 \0\F are a common occurrence, on the Alaskan North
Slope between November and April.\13\ In light of the above, there is
no assurance that the initial and semiannual monitoring that must occur
during that period of time are technically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12434.
\11\ See FLIR Systems, Inc. product specifications for GF300/320
model OGI cameras at https://www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=55671.
\12\ See Thermo Fisher Scientific product specification for TVA-
2020 at https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/Specification-Sheets/EPM-TVA2020.pdf.
\13\ See information on average hourly temperatures from January
2010 to January 2018 at the weather station located at Deadhorse
Alpine Airstrip, Alaska. Obtained from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s National Centers for
Environmental Information and summarized in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the rulemaking for the 2016 Rule, in response to comments
expressing concerns with cold temperatures in several regions, the EPA
had attempted to address the issue by providing additional flexibility
in the form of allowing consecutive semiannual events to take place
every 4 to 6 months. However, as commenters on the NODA correctly
observed, the EPA did not address the issue as it relates to initial
monitoring at well sites on the Alaskan North Slope; further, even with
the additional flexibility, semiannual monitoring at well sites located
on the Alaskan North Slope could still be required at a time when the
temperature is below the operating temperature of the monitoring
instruments.
In light of the technical feasibility issue discussed previously,
the EPA concludes that the current fugitive emissions monitoring
frequencies for well sites do not reflect the BSER for monitoring
fugitive emissions components at well sites on the Alaskan North Slope,
and that a different fugitive emissions monitoring schedule is
warranted for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope.
Specifically, the EPA has amended the 2016 Rule to require that new or
modified well sites that startup production between September and March
conduct initial monitoring within 6 months of the startup of production
or by June 30, whichever is later. We believe that the amendment would
assure that initial monitoring take place when both OGI and EPA Method
21 are operable.
In addition, the EPA is amending the 2016 Rule to require annual
(instead of semiannual) monitoring of fugitive emissions at well sites
on the Alaskan North Slope. During the rulemaking for the 2016 Rule,
the EPA had evaluated annual monitoring at well sites and concluded
that semiannual monitoring reflected the BSER for detecting fugitive
emissions at well sites. During the rulemaking for the 2016 Rule, we
stated in response to a comment that there would be months during the
semiannual monitoring periods when the OGI camera could work
effectively.\14\ However, after reconsidering the information provided
by commenters and confirmed by the EPA, we now conclude that monitoring
may not be technically feasible on the Alaskan North Slope for close to
6 consecutive months (November through April) due to the extreme cold
temperatures that could render the monitoring instruments inoperable.
Therefore, the EPA now concludes that annual monitoring more accurately
reflects the BSER for monitoring fugitive emissions at well sites on
the Alaskan North Slope because of the infeasibility of semiannual
monitoring. The impracticability is demonstrated by the following
example. If initial monitoring were conducted in August, the first
semiannual monitoring would be required between December and February.
Based on average temperatures during those months, it is unlikely that
semiannual monitoring would be possible in this window. Further, in
order for well sites on the Alaskan North Slope to conduct semiannual
monitoring, the monitoring events would be limited to April/May and
October/November, which creates additional difficulties with scheduling
monitoring, repairs, and resurveys within the required periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Chapter 4 of the EPA's Responses to Public Comments,
page 4-273 located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA concludes that the Alaskan North Slope issue must be
addressed immediately given that we are currently well into the cold
weather months. Because both the proposed 2-year stay and the
suggestion that we extend the phase-in period for the fugitive
emissions requirements would offer only temporary relief from the
initial and subsequent monitoring requirements at well sites, which the
EPA has already concluded to be inappropriate for the reasons stated
above, the EPA is not finalizing a stay or a longer phase-in of these
requirements. Rather, the EPA is taking final action to amend the 2016
Rule to provide a separate fugitive emissions monitoring schedule for
well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope to accommodate its arctic
climate.
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
The EPA received a large number of comments covering a wide range
of topics in response to our June 16, 2017, proposal and November 8,
2017, NODA. As discussed in sections II and IV of this preamble, the
EPA is still in the process of reviewing many of these comments. As
noted previously, however, in the course of this review, the EPA has
identified two specific provisions of the fugitive emissions
requirements in the 2016 Rule that pose significant and immediate
compliance concerns, and EPA is taking final action here to make
targeted amendments to the 2016 Rule to address these two concerns. The
Agency is still evaluating comments related to other issues raised in
the proposal and the NODA and is not taking final action with respect
to those issues at this time. Accordingly, we are not responding to
those comments at this time. This section summarizes the significant
comments relevant to the amendments in this final action, and our
response to those comments.
A. The EPA's Legal Authority
The EPA received numerous comments on the legal authorities for its
proposal to stay certain requirements of the 2016 Rule for 2 years and
for the alternative suggestion of providing
[[Page 10633]]
longer phase-in periods for those requirements. Because this final rule
does not involve staying or phasing in any requirement in the 2016
Rule, comments specific to the proposed stay and phase-in are deemed
outside of the scope of this final action. The EPA is, therefore, not
responding to these comments and is not addressing whether such
authority exists.
This final rule amends two aspects of the fugitive emissions
requirements in the 2016 Rule, which was promulgated pursuant to the
EPA's authority to set NSPS standards pursuant to CAA section 111(b)
according to the procedures under CAA section 307(d). Summarized below
are significant comments on the EPA's authority under CAA sections
111(b) and 307(d) to amend a previously promulgated NSPS.
Comment: The EPA received general comments on the EPA's legal
authority to amend the 2016 Rule under CAA section 111. One commenter
stated that any revisions to the 2016 Rule must follow the substantive
and procedural requirements found in CAA section 111 and 307(d).\15\ In
order the meet these requirements and amend the NSPS, the commenter
stated that the EPA must justify any revisions as being consistent with
the statutory mandate, explain the basis for the revision (including
supporting record), and follow the procedures established in CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters further described the statute's procedural
requirements, such as a thorough review of specific factors, such as
whether the standard reflects BSER, ``the cost of those standards, any
resulting nonair quality health and environmental impacts, energy
requirements, the amount of air pollution reduced by the standards, and
how the standards may drive technological innovation.'' \16\ The
commenter stated that a revision to the compliance date (as proposed)
would require a factual analysis that demonstrated the new compliance
date reflected in the emission reductions achievable through the BSER.
Further, the commenter stated that standards must be promulgated that
reflect ``improved design and operational advance'' that may not yet be
realized by industry, ``so long as there is substantial evidence that
such improvements are feasible and will produce the improved
performance necessary to meet the standard.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 80 FR 64510, 64538 (October 23, 2015) (quoting Sierra
Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326, 347 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). See also
42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (h)(1).
\17\ See Sierra Club v. Costle 657 F.2d at 364 and Portland
Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 190 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters further discussed the holding in the National
Association of Home Builders case in 2012. ``The fact that the original
[rule] was consistent with congressional intent is irrelevant as long
as the amended rule is also `permissible under the statute.' '' \18\ In
that case, the petitioners acknowledged that, although they believed
the original rule was better, the amended rule was permissible. Oral
Arg. Recording at 17:40-:43. As Fox made clear, that ``suffices'' as
far as the court is concerned. Fox, 556 U.S. at 515. Further, as Fox
noted, the Supreme Court has ``neither held nor implied that every
agency action representing a policy change must be justified by reasons
more substantial than those required to adopt a policy in first
instance.'' Fox, 556 U.S. at 514 (citing Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Ass'n of the United States, Inc., et al., v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., et al., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983)). To the
contrary, according to the commenters, the State Farm case affirmed
that ``[a]n agency's view of what is in the public interest may change,
either with or without a change in circumstances.'' State Farm, 463
U.S. at 57 (quoting Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d
841, 852 (D.C. Cir.1970)); see Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe Ry. Co., et al., 387 U.S. 397, 416 (1967) (declaring that an
agency, ``in light of reconsideration of the relevant facts and its
mandate, may alter its past interpretation and overturn past
administrative rulings''). Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders, 682 F.3d at
1037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders, et al., v. EPA, 682 F.3d
1032, 1037 (citing Fox, 556 U.S. at 515).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA agrees with the comment that it has authority to
amend an NSPS when it demonstrates that such revision is consistent
with the mandate of section 111(b) of the CAA and reasonably explain
the basis for the revision based on the record before the Agency, as
required by section 307(d) of the CAA. The EPA has done so in this
final action and need not address at this time if this is the sole
source of authority that the EPA may have to amend or stay an NSPS.
A standard of performance promulgated under section 111(b) of the
CAA must reflect the BSER for that emission source. In the 2016 Rule,
the EPA conducted BSER analyses for reducing fugitive emissions at well
sites and compressor stations, which resulted in the work practice
standards promulgated in that rule. As explained below in this section
and elsewhere in this notice, in the process of the current rulemaking,
the EPA has identified two narrow provisions of the fugitive emissions
requirements that pose immediate compliance concerns. The first issue
concerns the potential that the current requirements for delayed
repairs could result in an increase (instead of a reduction) of
emissions and service disruption. The other issue concerns the
technical feasibility of complying with the timeframe specified in the
2016 Rule for monitoring fugitive emissions at well sites in the
Alaskan North Slope due to its extreme cold temperature for a lengthy
period of time, which could render the monitoring instrument
inoperable. After examining the comments and information on these two
specific concerns, we conclude that the BSER and the resulting fugitive
emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule did not adequately address
these two compliance concerns and that revision is warranted. The
revision is based on comments, data, and other information submitted
during the rulemaking process, as well as our own analyses, all of
which can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. A more
detailed discussion of our revised analyses and amendment can be found
below in this section as well as in section IV of this preamble.
B. Delayed Repairs
Comment: Twelve commenters provided information related to the
requirements for delayed repairs in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. Ten
commenters \19\ supported a stay and/or suggested specific changes to
the regulation to address repairs during unplanned and emergency vent
blowdowns, while two commenters \20\ opposed any changes to the
requirement for delayed repairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12417, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12421, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-
12422, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12424, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12430, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12436,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12446, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505-12447, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12454, and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12456.
\20\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12444, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12451 (part 1 of comments), and Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12452 (part 2 of comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters that supported changes reiterated comments contained
in their petitions for reconsideration following the promulgation of
the 2016
[[Page 10634]]
Rule. The commenters stated that by requiring repairs during unplanned
or emergency events, the actual emissions could be higher than the
emissions of the delayed repair for that component. For instance,
requiring repairs during unplanned or emergency events may require
venting of equipment that is not being repaired and that would not
otherwise be vented during that shutdown, potentially resulting in
emissions much larger than those of the leak itself. Further, the
commenters asserted that prolonged shutdowns may be encountered while
repairs are made, which would affect both upstream and downstream
users. Specifically, these repairs could result in the need to vent or
flare gas upstream at a production facility if the midstream compressor
station has to remain offline. Further, gas supply could be limited for
downstream users, causing critical issues with the provision of power
or heat to end users reliance on natural gas.
One commenter \21\ provided specific data regarding components
monitored under the fugitive program in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
The commenter references an evaluation performed on 22 of their
compressor stations. This evaluation showed that 95-percent of all
leaks (345 of 362 leaks) occurring at these stations between 2015 and
2017 were repaired within 30 days, leaving only 5-percent to be placed
on a delayed repair. When repair was delayed, most repairs were
completed within 90 days of leak detection. Two commenters \22\
suggested specific edits to the regulation. Specifically, these edits
remove reference to the requirement for repairs to be completed during
unscheduled, planned, or emergency vent blowdowns and limits repairs at
compressor stations to scheduled shutdowns for maintenance. Further,
these commenters suggested additional language to require additional
justification for delaying repairs beyond a shutdown, requiring
Administrator approval on a case-by-case basis. Additional comments and
information are discussed in section IV of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12430.
\22\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12421 and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the two commenters that opposed changes to the delayed
repair requirements cited a lack of information to support either a
stay or compliance deadline extension. One commenter \23\ suggests that
since the leaks for which repairs are delayed were found prior to any
shutdown (whether planned or not), the company had time to make
arrangements to obtain replacement parts; thus, allowing repair during
that next shutdown event. Further, the commenter asserted that the EPA
has provided no data to demonstrate why a stay is necessary for the
entire fugitive program to accommodate such a small set of leaks given
that the data the EPA does have suggests the majority of leaks are
repaired at the time of the monitoring survey. Another commenter \24\
asserted that the requirement for delayed repairs is more accommodating
than it needs to be when compared to the requirements found in
California's rule. The commenter explained, ``California's regulation
requires leaks to be repaired within 14 calendar days, except for leaks
involving critical components, which must be repaired by the end of the
next process shutdown or within 12 months, whichever is sooner.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12451 (part 1 of
comments) and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12452 (part 2 of
comments).
\24\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA is amending the requirements for delayed repair
in this final action. Specifically, the EPA is removing the terms
``unplanned'' and ``emergency,'' used in reference to vent blowdowns
and added the term ``scheduled'' before the list of scenarios when
delayed repair must be completed. As several commenters noted and as
discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, completion of repair during
an unscheduled or emergency event could require a blowdown of equipment
that was not otherwise necessary in order to repair components on
delayed repair. Due to the potential for increasing emissions, the
current requirements for delayed repair do not reflect the BSER for
addressing fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations. In
addition, as discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, not requiring
delayed repair during unscheduled vent blowdowns would avoid the
potential of service disruption. As mentioned in section IV.A of this
preamble, we note that under CARB's leak repair requirements,\25\
delayed repair is permitted if gas service is critical to public gas
system operation; thereby, highlighting the importance of not
disrupting gas service. According to the data received, only around 5-
percent of leaks are placed on delay for repair. Further, unscheduled
or emergency vent blowdowns are but one of many scenarios where delayed
repair must be completed. Owners or operators are still required to
complete repairs on components during the next scheduled compressor
station shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in, after a planned vent
blowdown, or within 2 years, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the
requirement for delayed repair, as amended, still requires that repairs
occur as soon as possible while reducing the potential for unintended
emissions releases and service disruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Facilities, section 95669, California Code of Regulations, Title
17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 4,
Subarticle 13. Effective date October 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed earlier, this issue must be addressed immediately to
avoid potentially increasing emissions and/or disrupting gas supply.
The EPA acknowledges that there are other comments concerning other
aspects of the requirements for delayed repair in the fugitive
emissions requirements, and that the EPA continues to evaluate these
comments. Should any of these comments warrant additional changes to
the fugitive requirements, the EPA intends to address them separately.
C. Alaskan North Slope
Comment: Three commenters \26\ provided comments related to
compliance with the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements in
extreme cold weather conditions. These comments related to the
limitations of the monitoring technologies and worker safety concerns.
The commenters stated that the EPA should exempt well sites and
compressor stations located on the Alaskan North Slope from the
fugitive emissions monitoring requirements. At a minimum, two
commenters stated that the EPA should stay or extend the compliance
deadline for initial monitoring at these well sites. Additionally, two
commenters stated that extreme cold weather conditions can occur
outside of the Alaskan North Slope and these commenters requested
similar stays or extensions of the compliance deadlines for any
location experiencing these conditions. The commenters reiterated
comments submitted in the 2015 proposal and subsequent petitions for
reconsideration. Specifically, the commenters stated the technological
limitations and worker safety considerations in the Arctic
[[Page 10635]]
environment warrant an exemption from monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12434, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12436, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-
12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter provided manufacturer specifications for three of the
commonly used monitoring instruments (OGI camera, toxic vapor analyzer
(TVA), and multi gas monitors).\27\ The commenter noted that the
specifications indicate the lowest operating temperature for any of the
instruments is -4[emsp14][deg]F.\28\ This commenter further
provided average hourly temperature by month for the years 2012 through
2014. This data indicated that average hourly temperatures on the
Alaskan North Slope were below -4[emsp14][deg]F for
approximately 5 months (December through April). Three commenters
stated that while there is a waiver from quarterly monitoring at
compressor stations when average temperatures are below 0 [deg]F for 2
consecutive months, there is no similar waiver for semiannual
monitoring well sites, nor a waiver from initial monitoring at either
well sites or compressor stations. The commenters, therefore, stated
the combination of average hourly temperatures on the Alaskan North
Slope and the operating limitations of the monitoring instruments pose
immediate compliance implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12434.
\28\ See FLIR Systems, Inc. Product specifications for GF300/320
model OGI cameras at https://www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=55671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, two of the commenters stated that the EPA should exempt
well sites and compressor stations located on the Alaskan North Slope
from fugitive emissions monitoring similar to the exemptions from leak
detection and repair at natural gas processing plants provided in NSPS
OOOO and OOOOa.\29\ These commenters stated the reasons for applying an
exemption to the natural gas processing plants are also valid for well
sites and compressor stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12434 and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that available
monitoring technologies (OGI and, for EPA Method 21, TVA and multi gas
meters) are not designed to operate below -4[emsp14] [deg]F
or \+\14[emsp14] [deg]F, respectively.\30\ In addition to the
information provided by the commenters, information from the NOAA
demonstrate average temperatures on the Alaskan North Slope make it
technically infeasible to perform monitoring during a nearly 6-month
period.\31\ As we are already well within this period, the EPA must act
immediately to avoid requiring fugitive emissions monitoring at well
sites located on the Alaskan North Slope when the average temperature
there is below the operating temperature of any of the available
monitoring instruments. Therefore, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOOOa, to extend the initial monitoring deadline and allow
annual fugitive emissions monitoring at well sites located on the
Alaskan North Slope. The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOOOa, fugitive emissions monitoring requirements for compressor
stations located on the Alaskan North Slope because the commenters have
stated there are no compressor stations currently subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOOOa; therefore, there is no immediate compliance
concern to address for these requirements at this time.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See FLIR Systems, Inc. product specifications for GF300/320
model OGI cameras at https://www.flir.com/ogi/display/?id=55671 and
Thermo Fisher Scientific product specification for TVA-2020 at
https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/Specification-Sheets/EPM-TVA2020.pdf.
\31\ See information on average hourly temperatures from January
2010 to January 2018 at the weather station located at Deadhorse
Alpine Airstrip, Alaska. Obtained from NOAA's National Centers for
Environmental Information and summarized in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0505.
\32\ See ``Discussion of Comment Submitted on the NODA with
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the commenters noted, the issues with conducting fugitive
emissions monitoring at well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope
were raised in the comments on the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOOOa. In the EPA's responses to public comments on this issue, the EPA
stated that specific flexibilities were added to the fugitive emissions
monitoring program to avoid potential compliance concerns on the
Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, the repair deadline was extended
from 15 to 30 days, with an additional 30 days to complete the resurvey
after repair; semiannual monitoring at well sites is allowed every 4 to
6 months; when average temperatures are below 0 [deg]F for 2
consecutive months, quarterly monitoring is waived at compressor
stations, and Method 21 was added as an alternative method for leak
detection and resurvey.\33\ As one commenter noted, the EPA recognized
the challenges with monitoring instrument operation at low temperatures
for compressor stations, but did not extend a similar waiver from
monitoring for well sites.\34\ Further, it is not clear that the
flexibilities identified above assure that monitoring would not be
required when the temperature on the Alaskan North Slope is below the
operating temperature of the monitoring instrument. The commenters
reiterated this concern in the comments on the proposed stay and NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See ``EPA's Responses to Public Comments,'' Chapter 4,
pages 4-267, 4-268, 4-273, and 4-276. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7632.
\34\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We revisited the issue and reviewed both the relevant record for
the 2016 Rule as well as additional information received subsequent to
the rulemaking. Based on this evaluation, we recognized that a separate
initial monitoring requirement was necessary for well sites that
startup production during the months when it may be technically
infeasible to meet the 60-day initial monitoring requirement.
For instance, we examined the scenario of a new well starting
production in September. Under the current requirements, the initial
monitoring survey would be required within 60 days of the startup of
production. This would put the deadline in October or November,
depending on when the well started producing in September.\35\ The EPA
recognized from the data provided that these 2 months may have issues
with the feasibility of completing monitoring due to changing weather
conditions moving into winter. If we set a deadline for initial
monitoring 6 months from startup of production, then monitoring would
be required by March, when temperatures are still not warm enough for
instrument operation. While the average temperatures may be
sufficiently warm starting in the middle of spring, information
discussed in the Response to Comments document raised concerns with
melting snow, flooding, and transportation issues during this time.\36\
Additionally, we are concerned with potentially constraining affected
sources' ability to schedule and acquire requisite personnel and
equipment if we were to require all well sites that start production
between September and March to conduct initial monitoring in April or
May. These well sites would forever be locked into performing both
initial and all subsequent monitoring at the same time each year. We do
not believe that it is appropriate to place such constraint on the well
site's ability to schedule monitoring events. Based on average
temperatures, we are confident that monitoring can occur during the
[[Page 10636]]
summer months. Therefore, we have amended the 2016 Rule to require
that, for each new or modified well site located on the Alaskan North
Slope that starts production between September and March, the owner or
operator has 6 months, or until June 30, whichever is later, to
complete initial monitoring of the fugitive emissions components. The
amendments, which provide both a time frame and specific date, would
require monitoring as soon as feasible while avoiding the concerns
described above. For each new or modified well site located on the
Alaskan North Slope that starts production between September and March,
the owner or operator has 6 months, or until June 30, whichever is
later to complete initial monitoring of the fugitive emissions
components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Similar issues are realized by well sites starting up
between October and March, such as extreme low temperatures,
concerns with snow melt and flooding, and logistical issues
associated with schedule flexibility.
\36\ See ``EPA's Responses to Public Comments,'' Chapter 4, page
4-268. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees with the commenters that there are immediate
compliance concerns due to the operating limitations of monitoring
instruments. Therefore, we are finalizing an amendment to the timeframe
for the fugitive emission monitoring program for well sites located on
the Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, owners or operators must meet
the initial compliance deadline of 60 days from the startup of
production, unless the well site starts production between September
and March. Those well sites that startup production between September
and March must complete initial monitoring within 6 months of startup
of production or by June 30, whichever is later. Additionally, owners
or operators must perform annual monitoring for fugitive emissions,
following the initial monitoring survey at all affected well sites
located on the Alaskan North Slope, regardless of the startup date.
Subsequent monitoring surveys must occur at least every 12 months, with
consecutive monitoring surveys conducted at least 9 months apart. The
requirements for repair, recordkeeping, and reporting remain the same
as those in the 2016 Rule. Recognizing there are several months in
which temperatures are within the operating temperature range for the
monitoring instruments, the EPA concludes owners or operators have
enough flexibility to complete monitoring surveys in this timeframe.
Any further amendments for the Alaskan North Slope will be addressed
separately. This amendment only applies at well sites located on the
Alaskan North Slope. All other well sites must continue to comply with
the initial, semiannual, or quarterly monitoring requirements, as
appropriate.
With respect to comments on exempting facilities located on the
Alaskan North Slope from fugitive monitoring requirements, changes to
low temperature waivers, or any other concerns raised by the commenters
related to cold weather, addressing them will likely require additional
information and analysis. The EPA will continue evaluating these
comments.
VI. Impacts of the Final Amendments
Although there will be cost savings related to not requiring
delayed repairs during unscheduled or emergency events, as well as
forgone benefits related to the reductions of fugitive emissions that
might have occurred following these repairs, the EPA does not have cost
or economic data related to this provision because of the unplanned
nature of these events. Therefore, we are unable to determine the cost
savings or forgone benefits of amending the requirements for delayed
repair requirement related to unscheduled or emergency events.
In order to determine the impacts of the amendments to the fugitive
emissions requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North
Slope, we used the same assumptions and methods used to estimate
impacts of the 2016 Rule. Specifically, we used the number of affected
sources located on the Alaskan North Slope, and the cost and emission
reductions estimated for well sites at semiannual and annual fugitive
monitoring frequencies that were assumed in the 2016 Rule. The cost
savings and emission reductions estimated as a result of these
amendments are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. For more
information on the assumptions used in this analysis, as well as the
costs and emission reductions for fugitive emissions requirements at
well sites, see the Background Technical Support Document for the Final
New Source Performance Standards 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa (TSD)
located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7631. Note that the costs
in the TSD are in 2012 dollar years, and the cost savings presented
here are in 2016 dollar years. The amended fugitive monitoring
requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope will
save approximately $24,000 per year in compliance costs, after
accounting for forgone natural gas recovery. This amendment will also
result in approximately 34 short tons of forgone methane emission
reductions, or 772 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E).
Table 2--Estimated Cost Savings of the Amended Fugitive Monitoring Requirements on the Alaskan North Slope
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance cost savings Total annualized cost savings Total annualized cost savings
------------------------------------------------ (3%) (7%)
Annual Forgone ---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital cost operating cost product W/o product W/Product W/o product W/Product
savings savings recovery recovery recovery recovery recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NG Well Pads............................ $1,300 $29,000 $6,700 $29,000 $22,000 $29,000 $22,000
Oil Well Pads........................... 110 2,400 210 2,400 2,200 2,400 2,200
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 1,400 31,000 6,900 31,000 24,000 31,000 24,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Estimated Forgone Emission Reductions of the Amended Fugitive Monitoring Requirements on the Alaskan North Slope
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgone emission reductions Forgone
Affected ---------------------------------------------------------------- natural gas
source count Methane (short savings (Mcf
tpy \1\) VOC (tpy) HAP (tpy) CO2E (tpy) \2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NG Well Pads............................................ 30 33 9 0 748 1,911
[[Page 10637]]
Oil Well Pads........................................... 3 1 0 0 24 61
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 33 34 9 0 772 1,972
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ tons per year.
\2\ thousand cubic feet.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by
amending the requirement that components on a delayed repair must
conduct repairs during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns, and
adding flexibilities for the monitoring survey requirements for well
sites located on the Alaskan North Slope.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. The information collection requirements in the final 40
CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa have been submitted for approval to the OMB
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 2523.01. This action does
not result in changes to the submitted ICR for 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOOOa, so the information collection estimates of project cost and hour
burdens have not been revised.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An Agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action finalizes amendments for two
specific requirements in the 2016 Rule. This action will not increase
the burden on small entities subject to this rule. The EPA prepared a
final RFA analysis for the 2016 Rule, which is available as part of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505-7630. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will
have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action finalizes amendments for two specific
requirements in the 2016 Rule. Any impacts on children's health caused
by the amendments in the rule will be limited, because the scope of the
amendments is limited. The Agency, therefore, concludes it is more
appropriate to determine the impact on children's health in the context
of any substantive changes potentially proposed in the future as part
of the reconsideration of the 2016 Rule (as granted on April 18, 2017).
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The basis for this determination can be
found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
This action finalizes amendments for two specific requirements in
the 2016 Rule. Any impacts on minority populations and low-income
populations caused by the amendments in the rule will be limited,
because the scope of the amendments is limited. The
[[Page 10638]]
Agency, therefore, concludes it is more appropriate to determine the
impact on minority populations and low-income populations in the
context of any substantive changes potentially proposed in the future
as part of the reconsideration of the 2016 Rule (as granted on April
18, 2017).
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Dated: February 23, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart OOOOa--Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural
Gas Facilities for Which Construction, Modification or
Reconstruction Commenced After September 18, 2015
0
2. Section 60.5397a is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(1)
and (2), and (h)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.5397a What fugitive emissions GHG and VOC standards apply to
the affected facility which is the collection of fugitive emissions
components at a well site and the affected facility which is the
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station?
* * * * *
(f) (1) You must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 60
days of the startup of production, as defined in Sec. 60.5430a, for
each collection of fugitive emissions components at a new well site or
by June 3, 2017, whichever is later. For a modified collection of
fugitive emissions components at a well site, the initial monitoring
survey must be conducted within 60 days of the first day of production
for each collection of fugitive emission components after the
modification or by June 3, 2017, whichever is later. Notwithstanding
the preceding deadlines, for each collection of fugitive emissions
components at a well site located on the Alaskan North Slope, as
defined in Sec. 60.5430a, that starts up production between September
and March, you must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 6
months of the startup of production for a new well site, within 6
months of the first day of production after a modification of the
collection of fugitive emission components, or by the following June
30, whichever is later.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Except as provided herein, a monitoring survey of each
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site within a
company-defined area must be conducted at least semiannually after the
initial survey. Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys must be
conducted at least 4 months apart. A monitoring survey of each
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site located on
the Alaskan North Slope must be conducted at least annually.
Consecutive annual monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 9
months apart.
(2) A monitoring survey of the collection of fugitive emissions
components at a compressor station within a company-defined area must
be conducted at least quarterly after the initial survey. Consecutive
quarterly monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 60 days apart.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) If the repair or replacement is technically infeasible, would
require a vent blowdown, a compressor station shutdown, a well shutdown
or well shut-in, or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the
unit, the repair or replacement must be completed during the next
scheduled compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in,
after a planned vent blowdown or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-04431 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
