48262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

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 October 13, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

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 may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 30, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

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 K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520(c) is amended under 

Chapter 62–252 by: 

■ a. Removing the entries for ‘‘62–252– 

.100,’’ ‘‘62–252–.200,’’ ‘‘62–252–.400,’’ 

‘‘62–252–.500,’’ ‘‘62–252–.800’’, and 

‘‘62–252–.900’’ and 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘62–252– 

.300.’’ 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA REGULATIONS

State citation 

(Section) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

62–252.300 ............... Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Stage I 

Vapor Recovery.

5/1/2015 8/12/2015 [Insert citation of 

publication].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–19721 Filed 8–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9931–76– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS49 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions 

of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage 

Vessel 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes 

amendments to new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for the Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector. On March 23, 2015, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) re-proposed its definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well’’ for notice and 

comment to correct a procedural defect 

with its prior rulemaking that included 

this definition. The EPA also proposed 

to amend the NSPS to remove 

provisions concerning storage vessels 

connected or installed in parallel and to 

revise the definition of ‘‘storage vessel.’’ 

This action finalizes the definition of 

‘‘low pressure gas well’’ and the 

amendments to the storage vessel 

provisions. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

August 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this action, 

contact Mr. Matthew Witosky, 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) 541–2865; facsimile number: (919) 

541–3470; email address: 

witosky.matthew@epa.gov. For further 

information on the EPA’s Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector regulatory program 

for air, contact Mr. Bruce Moore, 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) 541–5460; facsimile number: (919) 

541–3470; email address: moore.bruce@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this reconsideration action 

apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by this action include: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48263 

1Letter from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas 

& Battle PLLC, to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA 

Administrator, October 15, 2012; Petition for 

Administrative Reconsideration of Final Rule ‘‘Oil 

and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance 

Standards and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,’’ 77 FR 49490 

(August 16, 2012). 

2Email from James D. Elliott, Spilman, Thomas 

& Battle PLLC, to Bruce Moore, EPA, March 24, 

2014. 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ....................................................................................................... 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. 

211112 Natural Gas Extraction. 

221210 Natural Gas Distribution. 

486110 Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil. 

486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas. 

Federal government ................................................................................... ........................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ...................................................................... ........................ Not affected. 

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 

affected by this action. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permitting authority for 

the entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 

(General Provisions). 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the World Wide Web 

(WWW). Following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

proposed action will be posted at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/

airquality/oilandgas/actions.html. 

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 October 13, 2015. 

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

only an objection to this final rule that 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established in 

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 us to convene 

a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f 

the person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within the period for public comment 

(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 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 

A. Low Pressure Gas Wells 

On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758), 

the EPA proposed the Oil and Natural 

Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOOO). Among the elements of 

the proposed rule were provisions for 

reduced emission completion (REC), 

also known as ‘‘green completion’’ of 

hydraulically fractured gas wells. In the 

proposal, the EPA solicited comment on 

situations where conducting a REC 

would be infeasible. Several 

commenters highlighted technical 

issues that prevent the implementation 

of a REC on what they referred to as 

‘‘low pressure’’ gas wells because of the 

lack of the necessary reservoir pressure 

to flow at rates appropriate for the 

transportation of solids and liquids from 

a hydraulically fractured gas well 

completion against additional 

backpressure which would be caused by 

the REC equipment. Based on our 

analysis of the public comments 

received, we determined that there are 

certain wells where a REC is technically 

infeasible because of the characteristics 

of the reservoir and the well depth that 

will not allow the flowback to overcome 

the gathering system pressure due to the 

additional backpressure imposed by the 

REC surface equipment. 

On August 16, 2012, the EPA 

published the final NSPS (77 FR 49490). 

Under the 2012 NSPS, a REC is not 

required for well completions of low 

pressure gas wells. Rather, the 2012 

final NSPS requires at 40 CFR 60.5375(f) 

that well completions of low pressure 

gas wells using hydraulic fracturing 

meet the requirements for combustion of 

flowback emissions and to the general 

duty to safely maximize resource 

recovery and minimize releases to the 

atmosphere required under 40 CFR 

60.5375(a)(4). 

The 2012 NSPS includes a definition 

of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ that is based 

on a mathematical formula that takes 

into account a well’s depth, reservoir 

pressure, and flow line pressure. 

Section 60.5430 defines low pressure 

gas well as ‘‘a well with reservoir 

pressure and vertical well depth such 

that 0.445 times the reservoir pressure 

(in psia) minus 0.038 times the vertical 

well depth (in feet) minus 67.578 psia 

is less than the flow line pressure at the 

sales meter.’’ 

Following publication of the 2012 

NSPS, a group of petitioners, led by the 

Independent Petroleum Association of 

America (IPAA), representing 

independent oil and natural gas owners 

and operators, submitted a joint petition 

for administrative reconsideration of the 

rule. The petitioners questioned the 

technical merits of the low pressure 

well definition and asserted that the 

public had not had an opportunity to 

comment on the definition because it 

was added in the final rule.1

On March 24, 2014, the petitioners 

submitted to the EPA a suggested 

alternative definition 2 for 

consideration. The petitioners’ 

definition is based on the fresh water 

hydrostatic gradient of 0.433 pounds per 

square inch per foot (psi/ft). The 

petitioners assert that this approach is 

straightforward and has been recognized 

for many years in the oil and natural gas 

industry and by governmental agencies 

and professional organizations. As 

expressed in the paper submitted by the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48264 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

petitioners, the alternative definition for 

consideration by the EPA, as stated by 

the petitioners, would be ‘‘a well where 

the field pressure is less than 0.433 

times the vertical depth of the deepest 

target reservoir and the flow-back period 

will be less than three days in 

duration.’’ 

On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed 

clarifying amendments to the gas well 

completion provisions of the NSPS. In 

the July proposal, we re-proposed the 

definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ for 

notice and comment. We also discussed 

the alternative definition provided by 

the IPAA. Specifically, we expressed 

concern that the IPAA alternative 

definition is too simplistic and may not 

adequately account for the parameters 

that must be considered when 

determining whether a REC would be 

feasible for a given hydraulically 

fractured gas well. We expressed 

disagreement with the petitioners’ 

assertion that the EPA definition is too 

complicated and that it would pose 

difficulty or hardship for smaller 

operators. However, we agreed with the 

petitioners that the public should have 

been provided an opportunity to 

comment on the 2012 definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well,’’ and we, therefore, 

re-proposed the 2012 definition for 

notice and comment. In addition, we 

solicited comment on the alternative 

definition suggested by the petitioners. 

On August 18, 2014, prior to the close 

of the public comment period for the 

July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on 

behalf of the independent oil and 

natural gas owner and operator 

petitioners, submitted a comment to the 

EPA via the email address to the Air and 

Radiation Docket provided in the 

proposed rule. 

The EPA published final amendments 

in the Federal Register at 79 FR 79018 

on December 31, 2014, which finalized 

the definition of ‘‘low pressure gas 

well’’ unchanged from the 2012 

definition. Subsequent to the December 

31, 2014, publication of the final 

amendments, the EPA became aware 

that the comment submitted by the 

IPAA was not made part of the record 

in the docket and, thus, was not 

available to be considered by the EPA in 

its decision-making process prior to 

finalizing the amendments. On March 

23, 2015 (80 FR 15180), the EPA reproposed the definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well’’, and took comment 

on IPAA’s alternative definition to 

correct the procedural defect. 

B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel 

In the December 31, 2014, final rule, 

the EPA finalized amendments to the 

NSPS to address, among other issues, 

the affected facility status of storage 

vessel affected facilities. The final 

action included amendments related to 

storage vessels ‘‘connected in parallel’’ 

or ‘‘installed in parallel.’’ As we 

explained in the final rule preamble (79 

FR 79027), ‘‘Although we believe it is an 

unlikely occurrence, we note that, when 

two or more storage vessels receive 

liquids in parallel, the total throughput 

is shared between or among the parallel 

vessels and, in turn, this causes the PTE 

of each vessel to be a fraction of the total 

PTE.’’ To address such isolated 

occurrences where storage vessels are 

installed or connected to reduce the 

potential to emit (PTE) and, therefore, 

avoid being subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOOO, we amended the NSPS 

to address situations in which two or 

more storage vessels could be installed 

or connected in parallel which could, in 

some cases, lower the PTE of the 

individual storage vessels to levels 

below the 6 tons per year (tpy) 

applicability threshold provided in 40 

CFR 60.5365(e). Specifically, we 

amended 40 CFR 60.5365(e)(4) to 

provide that a storage vessel that is 

being placed into service, and is 

connected in parallel with a storage 

vessel affected facility, is immediately 

subject to the same requirements as the 

affected facility with which it is being 

connected in parallel. We also amended 

the definitions for ‘‘returned to service’’ 

and ‘‘storage vessel’’ in 40 CFR 60.5430 

to provide that two or more storage 

vessels connected in parallel are 

considered equivalent to a single storage 

vessel with throughput equal to the total 

throughput of the storage vessels 

connected in parallel. 

Following publication of the 

December 2014 final rule, we became 

aware that the terms ‘‘connected in 

parallel’’ and ‘‘installed in parallel’’ 

inadvertently included storage vessels 

beyond those we attempted to address 

as described above. On February 19, 

2015, the Gas Processors Association 

(GPA) submitted a petition for 

administrative reconsideration of the 

December 31, 2014, amendments. The 

GPA asserted that ‘‘it is quite common 

for multiple storage vessels to be 

situated next to each other and 

connected in parallel. Sometimes the 

storage vessels are operated in parallel, 

sometimes they are operated in series, 

and sometimes they are operated one-ata-time with the connecting valves 

closed.’’ The GPA further asserted that 

this configuration has existed for 

decades and that ‘‘this language 

potentially has large impacts to how our 

members evaluate affected facility 

status.’’ For the reasons discussed 

above, we proposed to remove the 

regulatory provisions relative to storage 

vessels ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or 

‘‘connected in parallel.’’ 

III. Summary of Final Amendments 

This section presents a summary of 

the provisions of the final action with 

brief explanations where appropriate. In 

some cases, additional detailed 

discussions are provided in section IV 

and V of this preamble, as well as the 

Response to Comment document. The 

final amendments include revisions to 

certain reconsidered aspects of the 2012 

NSPS as follows: (1) Definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well’’; (2) definition of 

‘‘returned to service’’; (3) definition of 

‘‘storage vessel’’; (4) revision of 40 CFR 

60.5365(e)(4) to remove the phrases ‘‘or 

is installed in parallel with any storage 

vessel affected facility,’’ and ‘‘or with 

which it is installed in parallel.’’ 

A. Low Pressure Gas Wells 

The EPA is finalizing its definition of 

‘‘low pressure gas well.’’ For the 

purposes of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

OOOO, our definition of low pressure 

gas well is for a singular purpose—to 

identify the wells that cannot 

implement a REC because of a lack of 

necessary reservoir pressure to flow gas 

at rates appropriate for the 

transportation of solids and liquids from 

a hydraulically fractured gas well 

against additional backpressure that 

would be caused by the REC equipment, 

thereby making a REC infeasible (80 FR 

15182). 

In response to comments, we are 

amending the definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well’’ in this final action by 

changing ‘‘vertical depth’’ to ‘‘true 

vertical depth.’’ This change more 

accurately reflects our intent when 

formulating the definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well.’’ 

B. Storage Vessels Connected in Parallel 

The EPA is revising the definition of 

‘‘storage vessel’’ to remove references to 

‘‘connected in parallel’’ and ‘‘installed 

in parallel’’ from the current definition, 

and making associated changes to 40 

CFR 60.5365(e)(4). We are not making 

any changes to the proposed definition 

of ‘‘storage vessel.’’ 

IV. Significant Changes Since Proposal 

There is only one significant change 

since proposal, which is to refer to ‘‘true 

vertical depth’’ (instead of ‘‘vertical 

depth’’) in the definition of ‘‘low 

pressure gas well.’’ Several commenters 

took issue that the proposal definition of 

‘‘low pressure gas well’’ does not take 

into account the ‘‘true vertical depth’’ of 

the well, as the ‘‘vertical depth’’ of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48265 

well can overstate actual vertical depth 

because well bores may not be 

absolutely vertical. The commenters 

concluded that measured vertical depth 

often exceeds the true vertical depth of 

a well bore. The commenters believe 

this is an important distinction, 

especially for directional or horizontal 

wells, that should be clarified in the 

definition. 

We agree with the commenters that 

‘‘true vertical depth’’ is more accurate 

terminology that better represents our 

intent. In light of the above 

considerations, we are amending the 

definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in 

this action by changing ‘‘vertical depth’’ 

to ‘‘true vertical depth.’’ 

V. Summary of Significant Comments 

and Responses 

This section summarizes the 

significant comments on our proposed 

amendments and our responses. 

A. Definition of ‘‘Low Pressure Gas 

Well’’ 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the EPA’s defense of the low pressure 

well definition focuses on the level of 

burden the definition imposes on the 

industry. The commenter contended 

that the EPA is missing the point with 

this response. The commenter 

contended that their concern is not the 

hardship imposed by the calculation 

required by the definition but rather that 

the definition does not accurately depict 

what historically has been considered to 

be a low pressure gas well. Thus, 

according to the commenter, the current 

definition would require RECs to be 

performed on marginally cost-effective 

wells. 

Response: In the 2012 rulemaking, 

EPA concluded that the BSER for well 

completion was a combination of REC 

and combustion; however, in response 

to comment that REC is not technically 

feasible for ‘‘low pressure gas wells’’ 

due to the inability of such wells to 

attain a gas velocity sufficient to clean 

up the well when flowing against the 

backpressure imposed by the surface 

equipment and the flow line pressure, 

the EPA exempted ‘‘low pressure gas 

wells’’ from REC in the 2012 NSPS. The 

EPA subsequently re-proposed its ‘‘low 

pressure gas well’’ definition in 

response to an administrative petition 

that notice or an opportunity to 

comment was not provided for the 

EPA’s 2012 definition of ‘‘low pressure 

gas well.’’ However, rather than 

commenting on parameters for defining 

‘‘technical infeasibility’’ to implement 

REC, the commenter asks the EPA to 

consider other burdens and hardships in 

defining ‘‘low pressure wells.’’ In the 

2015 re-proposal of the ‘‘low pressure 

gas well’’ definition, the EPA did not 

propose or otherwise contempt 

exempting well completions from 

performing REC for reasons beyond 

technical infeasibility. This request is 

thus beyond the purpose and scope of 

this re-proposal, which is to provide a 

low pressure well definition that would 

accurately describe wells for which REC 

is technically infeasible due to low 

pressure and, therefore, exempt from the 

REC requirements under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOOO. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the alternative 

definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ 

provided by IPAA as being more 

representative of current industry 

practice of defining these wells. 

According to one commenter, the 

alternative definition is based on the 

fresh water gradient, is widely used in 

industry, and appropriately describes 

the well conditions where installation of 

REC equipment is impractical. The 

commenter stated that the fresh water 

gradient (i.e., 0.433 psi/ft or 8.33 

pounds(lbs)/gallon (gal) × 0.052 × True 

Vertical Depth (TVD)) represents 

normally pressured wells based on the 

hydrostatic overhead pressure of fresh 

water that increases linearly with TVD. 

If reservoir pressure is less than the 

hydrostatic pressure of water, the well 

will not flow on its own because of the 

overhead pressure of fracture fluids in 

the wellbore that will be higher than the 

reservoir pressure which may make REC 

equipment impractical. The commenter 

added that whether a well’s productive 

reservoir pressure is above or below the 

water gradient may be readily confirmed 

by reading offset reservoir pressure data 

in the development field or by 

evaluating certain wireline well logs 

that may be run after drilling a well 

before well completion begins. 

Another commenter stated that the 

EPA’s current definition does not 

accurately define what industry has 

historically defined and recognized as a 

low pressure well. According to the 

commenter, because EPA’s definition 

does not accurately delineate low 

pressure wells, the current definition 

will subject a subset of wells to RECs 

where the operation of a separator is not 

physically possible, thereby making the 

wells uneconomical as a result of being 

subject to REC requirements. The 

commenter included a table showing 

the values calculated using the EPA’s 

definition for various well depths and 

flow line pressures. According to the 

commenter, the alternate definition 

would classify all of the values in the 

table as a low pressure well, while the 

EPA’s definition would only consider 

about a quarter of the wells as low 

pressure. 

The commenter further stated that the 

permeability of the reservoir and other 

reservoir characteristics play a critical 

role in determining when a well is low 

pressure well or under-pressured. In 

addition to overcoming the hydrostatic 

pressure and sale line pressure, the 

separator necessary for the REC adds to 

the pressure which must be overcome 

for gas to flow from the reservoir. The 

commenter stated that the separator 

pressure is arguably the controlling 

parameter on when a REC is feasible 

versus the sales line pressure. Unlike 

the sales line pressure, which is easily 

known, the commenter contended that 

the separator pressure can vary greatly 

depending on gas and liquid rates, 

liquid composition, and equipment 

limitations. The commenter pointed out 

that the EPA’s definition does not take 

separator pressure into account, thereby 

making the definition overly 

conservative. The commenter admitted 

that the alternative definition does not 

contain an adjustment for separator 

pressure either, but the definition is 

more accurate and is inclusive of wells 

recognized by the industry as ‘‘low 

pressure.’’ 

In addition to the pressure associated 

with the separator, the commenter 

stated that in order for a separator to 

function, there must be a sufficient 

volume of gas (at appropriate pressure) 

to lift the associated liquids and 

overcome the pressure of the separator. 

The commenter added that if that gas 

rate is not achieved, the well will load 

up and a REC will not be possible. 

According to the commenter, the gas 

rate necessary for a REC varies based on 

reservoir pressure and casing/tubing 

diameter. The commenter provided a 

graph of Coleman curves to illustrate 

this point, which illustrates that as the 

pressure and casing diameter increase, 

so must the gas rate. 

Response: The EPA believes that the 

alternative definition of ‘‘low pressure 

gas well,’’ based only on fresh water 

gradient, may not adequately account 

for the parameters that must be taken 

into account when determining whether 

a REC would be feasible for a given 

hydraulically fractured gas well. We 

believe that, to determine whether the 

flowback gas has sufficient pressure to 

flow into a flow line, it is necessary to 

account for reservoir pressure, well 

depth, and flow line pressure. In 

addition, it is important for any such 

determination to take into account 

pressure losses in the surface equipment 

used to perform the REC. The EPA’s 

definition in the proposed rule was 

developed to account for these factors. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48266 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3 ‘‘USEPA’s proposed low pressure well 

definition forces controls on a segment of the 

industry that have no or minimal beneficial impact 

on the environment while imposing significant 

additional costs that will make drilling and 

operating such wells uneconomical.’’ (James Elliott, 

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, on behalf of 

Independent Petroleum Association of America et 

al., August 8, 2014) 

The EPA agrees that there must be a 

sufficient volumetric flow of gas (caused 

by adequate reservoir pressure) to lift 

the associated liquids and overcome the 

pressure of the separator, enabling the 

gas to be collected (i.e., enter the flow 

line). However, the EPA disagrees that 

the current definition, which we reproposed for notice and comment, does 

not take into account the additional 

backpressure caused by the REC 

equipment, including a separator. The 

model uses an energy balance to 

determine the pressure drop based on 

the calculated velocity, and then the 

model accounts for pressure losses 

caused by REC equipment, including 

the separator. The result of the model is 

a prediction of the pressure of the 

flowback gas immediately before it 

enters the flow line. The result can be 

compared to the actual flow line 

pressure available to the well. For wells 

with insufficient pressure to produce 

into the flow line, as predicted using the 

EPA equation, combustion must be used 

to control emissions. For wells with 

sufficient pressure to produce into the 

flow line, gas capture in combination 

with combustion must be used to 

control emissions. 

According to some of the commenters, 

the EPA’s definition of low pressure gas 

well should be revised because it does 

not comport with what the industry has 

historically considered to be a low 

pressure gas well. We are not making a 

determination on the similarity of the 

two definitions because we do not 

believe that the two must be the same 

for purposes of the Oil and Gas NSPS. 

The EPA has provided a definition of 

‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in the NSPS in 

order to designate a class of wells where 

a REC is not technically feasible. Our 

definition of ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in 

the NSPS is for a singular purpose—to 

identify the wells that cannot 

implement a REC because of a lack of 

necessary reservoir pressure to flow gas 

at rates appropriate for the 

transportation of solids and liquids from 

a hydraulically fractured gas well 

during flowback against additional 

backpressure which would be caused by 

the REC equipment, thereby making a 

REC technically infeasible (80 FR 

15182). To the extent that the industry 

definition is different from the EPA 

definition, the industry likely defines a 

particular well as being low pressure for 

a variety of reasons.3 As such, it is not 

clear that a REC is not technically 

infeasible for all of the wells that the 

industry has historically considered to 

be ‘‘low pressure wells.’’ 

B. Revisions to the Alternate Definition 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the alternative definition should also be 

clarified to state ‘‘where field reservoir 

pressure is less than 0.433 times the true 

vertical depth of the reservoir.’’ 

According to the commenter, referring 

to reservoir pressure adds clarity and 

true vertical depth is a well-known 

standard term in the industry to 

differentiate from ‘‘measured depth,’’ 

where measured depth is the length of 

the well. The commenters stated this is 

an important distinction, especially for 

directional or horizontal wells, that 

should be clarified in the low pressure 

well definition. 

Another commenter similarly 

suggested that instead of defining the 

term ‘‘low pressure gas well’’ in terms 

of the ‘‘vertical depth’’ of the deepest 

target reservoir, it should instead by 

defined in terms of the ‘‘true vertical 

depth.’’ The commenter cited to the 

Schlumberger online Oil Field Glossary, 

which defines ‘‘true vertical depth’’ as 

follows: 

The vertical distance from a point in 

the well (usually the current or final 

depth) to a point at the surface, usually 

the elevation of the rotary kelly bushing 

(RKB). This is one of two primary depth 

measurements used by the drillers, the 

other being measured depth. TVD is 

important in determining bottomhole 

pressures, which are caused in part by 

the hydrostatic head of fluid in the 

wellbore. For this calculation, measured 

depth is irrelevant and TVD must be 

used. For most other operations, the 

driller is interested in the length of the 

hole or how much pipe will fit into the 

hole. For those measurements, 

measured depth, not TVD, is used. 

While the drilling crew should be 

careful to designate which measurement 

they are referring to, if no designation is 

used, they are usually referring to 

measured depth. Note that measured 

depth, due to intentional or 

unintentional curves in the wellbore, is 

always longer than true vertical depth. 

The commenter stated that it would 

be better to use ‘‘true vertical depth’’ 

because the measured vertical depth can 

overstate actual vertical depth because 

well bores may not be absolutely 

vertical. Thus, measured vertical depth 

often exceeds the true vertical depth of 

a well bore. 

One commenter stated that the IPAA’s 

proposed definition for ‘‘low pressure 

well’’ was based on the weight of fresh 

water (8.33 lbs/gal) which is stacked on 

top of itself, and is known as hydrostatic 

pressure. Converting the density of fresh 

water to a pressure gradient results in 

8.33 lb/gal being equal to 0.433 psi/ft. 

Therefore, the pressure of fresh water in 

the well bore is 0.433 psi/ft times the 

vertical well depth. 

The commenter added that in reality, 

the fluid flowing to the surface could be 

fresh water, re-used hydraulic fracturing 

water, re-used, produced water, or a 

mixture. Additionally, in the beginning 

of the operation, the commenter stated 

that initial fluids flowing to the surface 

are essentially the fracturing fluids put 

down hole. At the end of the operation, 

the fluids flowing to the surface will 

mainly consist of reservoir fluids, and 

the water will be more of a brine water 

and not fresh water. The commenter 

added that brine water has a greater 

density, and more reservoir pressure 

will be required to lift the fluid to the 

surface. The commenter contended that 

the use of a fresh water gradient of 0.433 

psi/ft should be used to keep the 

definition conservative and simple. 

As an alternative, or in addition, to a 

fresh water gradient, the commenter 

recommended that the density of brine 

water influenced by sand or proppant 

should be used to more accurately 

reflect the pressure of the water column 

in the well bore. The commenter 

pointed out that the EPA appears to 

have utilized a gradient of 0.4645 psi/ 

ft in the ‘‘Lessons Learned from Natural 

Gas STAR Partners; Reduced Emissions 

Completions for Hydraulically 

Fractured Natural Gas Wells’’ paper 

developed as a part of the EPA’s Natural 

Gas STAR Program. The commenter 

stated that this is evidenced by the 

gradients listed in Exhibit 5 of the 

paper. Additionally, to perform a REC, 

the commenter contended that the 

downhole reservoir pressure must be 

sufficient enough to lift the hydraulic 

fracturing fluid to the surface and 

through the separation equipment and 

piping, with the resulting gas still 

having enough backpressure for it to get 

into the natural gas gathering line. 

According to the commenter, to 

combust flowback emissions the 

downhole reservoir pressure must be 

sufficient enough to lift the hydraulic 

fracturing fluid to the surface and 

through the separation equipment and 

piping, with the resulting gas still 

having enough backpressure to flow to 

a flare or enclosed combustion device. 

To reflect these realities, the 

commenter proposed that no emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48267 

control be required when the following 

scenario exists: 

A well where the reservoir pressure is less 

than 0.4645 times the vertical depth of the 

deepest target reservoir. 

At reservoir pressures below this 

value, the commenter contends that 

insufficient pressure exists for any gas 

to flow to a flare, enclosed combustion 

device or the process. Consequently, the 

commenter proposes that combustion 

through a flare or enclosed combustion 

device be required when the following 

scenario exists: 

A well where the reservoir pressure is less 

than 0.4645 times the vertical depth of the 

deepest target reservoir plus the gathering or 

sales line pressure. 

At reservoir pressures less than the 

sum of the water column pressure and 

the sales line pressure, the commenter 

contended that the recovered gas will 

not naturally flow into the sales line. 

The commenter stated that the proposed 

rule does not require compression of 

recovered gas into the sales line. The 

commenter further states that the EPA 

has recognized this type of simpler 

approach in estimating the level of 

pressure necessary for recovered gas to 

flow into a gathering or sales line in 

their Gas STAR document cited above. 

In this Gas STAR paper, a table (Exhibit 

5) is provided that shows the pressures 

necessary for various well depths. For 

instance, the commenter pointed out 

that the document indicates that the 

reservoir pressure necessary to flow 

recovered gas into a sales line for a 

10,000-foot well would be 4,645 psig 

plus the sales line pressure. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that ‘‘true vertical depth’’ is 

more accurate terminology that better 

represents our intent. Although we are 

not adopting the alternative definitions 

for the reasons presented above, we are 

amending the current definition of low 

pressure gas well to include ‘‘true 

vertical depth.’’ 

C. Storage Vessel Requirements 

Comment: One commenter 

acknowledged the EPA’s proposal to 

remove provisions relating to storage 

vessels ‘‘installed in parallel’’ or 

‘‘connected in parallel’’ because these 

provisions ‘‘inadvertently’’ 

encompassed storage vessels the Agency 

did not intend to address. However, the 

commenter contended that the EPA 

does not identify those vessels that it 

believes were inadvertently covered in 

the December 2014 rule, nor does it 

propose alternative regulatory language 

that would ensure adequate control 

measures for vessels connected or 

installed in parallel that were intended 

to be covered under the December 2014 

rule. 

Given that storage vessels, including 

those installed or connected in parallel, 

can be significant sources of emissions, 

the commenter opposed the EPA’s 

proposal to simply remove any 

provisions addressing these vessels. 

Instead of removing all provisions 

regarding vessels installed or connected 

in parallel, as the Agency proposed, the 

commenter urged the EPA to instead 

clarify its existing requirements for such 

vessels. The commenter suggested that 

the EPA could, for instance, clarify that 

pollution control measures apply to 

storage vessels operated in parallel in 

the relevant regulatory provisions 

addressing storage vessel affected 

facilities and the definitions of 

‘‘returned to service’’ and ‘‘storage 

vessel.’’ 

Response: The change to the 

definition of ‘‘storage vessel’’ is 

intended to preserve the original basis 

on individual storage vessels to 

determine affected facility status, while 

addressing the potential situation where 

the flow of crude oil, condensate, 

intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, or 

produced water is divided into two or 

more tanks operated in parallel (i.e., 

sharing the emissions at the correlated 

fraction of what a single tank would 

emit). Through comments submitted on 

the March 2015 proposed rule, the 

public has informed us that many 

storage vessels that are configured in 

parallel may not be operated or 

constructed to divide their potential to 

emit continuously, if ever. The EPA has 

now reconsidered our attempt to 

include storage vessels connected in 

parallel to address the specific situation 

resulting in circumvention. We believe 

that we do not have sufficient data to 

evaluate the scope of storage vessels that 

would fall under the amended 

definition and for which we did not 

intend to cover. 

We believe that we have sufficient 

provisions under the General Provisions 

at 40 CFR 60.12 ‘‘Circumvention’’ to 

address the specific situation where 

storage vessels are divided into smaller 

tanks to avoid applicability of the rule 

and which was our intent with the 

previous amended definition. Therefore, 

we do not believe that our reverting to 

the prior definition of ‘‘storage vessel’’ 

will affect our ability to ensure control 

of these storage vessels. Consequently, 

as proposed, we are finalizing the 

removal of provisions made in the 2014 

amendment relating to storage vessels 

‘‘installed in parallel’’ or ‘‘connected in 

parallel.’’ 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://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. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0673. This action does not change 

the information collection requirements 

previously finalized and, as a result, 

does not impose any additional burden 

on industry. 

C. 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. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action is a reconsideration 

of an existing rule and imposes no new 

impacts or costs. 

D. 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. 

E. 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action is a 

reconsideration of an existing rule and 

imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48268 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. This 

action is a reconsideration of an existing 

rule and imposes no new impacts or 

costs. 

K. 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 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping. 

Dated: July 31, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

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 OOOO—Standards of 

Performance for Crude Oil and Natural 

Gas Production, Transmission, and 

Distribution 

■ 2. Section 60.5365(e)(4) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.5365 Am I subject to this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) For each new, reconstructed, or 

modified storage vessel with startup, 

startup of production, or which is 

returned to service, affected facility 

status is determined as follows: If a 

storage vessel is reconnected to the 

original source of liquids or is used to 

replace any storage vessel affected 

facility, it is a storage vessel affected 

facility subject to the same requirements 

as before being removed from service, or 

applicable to the storage vessel affected 

facility being replaced, immediately 

upon startup, startup of production, or 

return to service. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 60.5430 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Low 

pressure gas well,’’ ‘‘Returned to 

service,’’ and the first three sentences in 

the introductory text of ‘‘Storage vessel’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.5430 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Low pressure gas well means a well 

with reservoir pressure and vertical well 

depth such that 0.445 times the 

reservoir pressure (in psia) minus 0.038 

times the true vertical well depth (in 

feet) minus 67.578 psia is less than the 

flow line pressure at the sales meter. 

* * * * * 

Returned to service means that a 

Group 1 or Group 2 storage vessel 

affected facility that was removed from 

service has been: 

(1) Reconnected to the original source 

of liquids or has been used to replace 

any storage vessel affected facility; or 

(2) Installed in any location covered 

by this subpart and introduced with 

crude oil, condensate, intermediate 

hydrocarbon liquids or produced water. 

* * * * * 

Storage vessel means a tank or other 

vessel that contains an accumulation of 

crude oil, condensate, intermediate 

hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water, 

and that is constructed primarily of 

nonearthen materials (such as wood, 

concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) 

which provide structural support. A 

well completion vessel that receives 

recovered liquids from a well after 

startup of production following 

flowback for a period which exceeds 60 

days is considered a storage vessel 

under this subpart. A tank or other 

vessel shall not be considered a storage 

vessel if it has been removed from 

service in accordance with the 

requirements of § 60.5395(f) until such 

time as such tank or other vessel has 

been returned to service. * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–19733 Filed 8–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 84 

[Docket Number CDC–2015–0004; NIOSH– 

280] 

RIN 0920–AA60 

Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators; 

Extension of Transition Period 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In March 2012, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) published a final rule 

establishing a new standard for the 

certification of closed-circuit escape 

respirators (CCERs) by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) within the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

The new standard was originally 

designed to take effect over a 3-year 

transition period. HHS has determined 

that extending the concluding date for 

the transition is necessary to allow 

sufficient time for respirator 

manufacturers to meet the demands of 

the mining, maritime, railroad and other 

industries. Pursuant to this final action, 

NIOSH extends the phase-in period 

until 1 year after the date that the first 

approval is granted to certain CCER 

models. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

12, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst; 1090 

Tusculum Avenue, MS: C–46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 

818–1629 (this is a toll-free number); 

email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES