BEFORE THE UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: ) Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; ) FRL-9226-3

Final Rule ) RIN 2060-AP99

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Per section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), and for the 

reasons set forth below, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (“INGAA”) petitions 

the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to reconsider

provisions of its final rule in “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Systems,” 75 Fed. Reg. 74458 (November 30, 2010)(the “Final Rule”).

This petition voices objections that could not have been raised during the public comment 

period because they concern Final Rule provisions that did not appear in the proposed rule, 74 

Fed. Reg. 16448 (April 10, 2009) (the “Proposed Rule”). Each of INGAA’s first three concerns 

deal with regulations allowing operators to compute greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions using 

“best alternative monitoring methods” (“BAMM”) in lieu of the methods prescribed elsewhere in 

Subpart W of EPA’s GHG reporting regulations. The BAMM regulations were not part of 

Proposed Rule, and there was no reasonable basis for INGAA to anticipate their issuance. Also, 

as noted in INGAA’s fourth item for reconsideration, the Final Rule raises implementation issues 

that were not evident in the Proposed Rule because they relate to previously unannounced 

requirements for emissions estimation and reporting.

The issues presented below are of central relevance to the outcome of this rulemaking

and reconsideration should be granted to address them. Because we anticipate these issues will 
- 2 -

require further discussion of a technical nature, INGAA would welcome the opportunity to meet 

with EPA to discuss our concerns further.

INGAA seeks reconsideration of the following four matters:

1. There is a confusing disconnect between the BAMM requests due April 30, 2011, 

and those due September 30, 2011.

Both the legal requirements commonly applicable to interstate natural gas transmission,

and the basic design of compressor station equipment, buildings and grounds, pose significant

and long-term safety, technical and legal barriers to obtaining the data necessary to calculate 

GHG emissions per the procedures prescribed in Subpart W of the GHG reporting rule. See 

generally 40 C.F.R. § 98.233. For many of these compressor stations, reporters will be 

requesting approval to use BAMM during 2011, 2012 and beyond.

For leak detection and measurement (40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(4)), the Final Rule specifies

two separate BAMM requests, subject to different filing deadlines, content requirements and 

decision criteria, for approval to use BAMM during two separate periods. Requests to use 

BAMM during calendar 2011 must be filed by April 30, 2011, 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(5)(iii)(A); 

requests to use BAMM in 2012 and beyond must be filed by September 30, 2011, 40 C.F.R. 

§ 98.234(f)(8)(i). For other emissions subject to Subpart W, the Final Rule still specifies two 

separate BAMM requests, due the April 30th and September 30th, but the April 30th request 

covers only the period from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

The content requirements and approval criteria — and thus the apparent circumstances 

that warrant the use of BAMM — differ widely between the two BAMM requests. The 

April 30th request, governing calendar 2011, focuses on the reporter making “all reasonable 

efforts to obtain the information, services, or equipment necessary to comply with Subpart W.” 

See 40 C.F.R. §§ 98.234(f)(5)(iii)(B)(3)-(4), (C). In contrast, the September 30th request, 
- 3 -

governing 2012 and beyond, asks the reporter to describe why the prescribed data collection 

methodologies do not meet safety requirements, are technically infeasible, or conflict with other 

laws or regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(8)(iv).

Several aspects of the regulations applicable to the April 30th requests are confusing, 

particularly when compared with the corresponding regulations applicable to the September 30th

requests.

The first point of confusion concerns timing and eligibility assessment. Reporters will 

not have time to assess whether all of their facilities qualify for BAMM by this April 30th, yet the 

Final Rule requires that a request must be filed by April 30th for every facility where BAMM will 

be sought for 2011. In discussions subsequent to its issuance of the Final Rule, EPA suggested 

that for these facilities reporters should submit modified April 30th requests that would serve as 

notice of potential BAMM eligibility — in effect, a placeholder — to be supplemented by the 

September 30th request or other subsequent filing. This approach is consistent with the “potential 

situation” provision in the Final Rule:

If the reporter anticipates the potential need for [BAMM] for sources for which 

they need to petition EPA and the situation is unresolved at the time of the 

deadline, reporters should submit written notice of this potential situation to EPA 

by the specified deadline for requests to be considered.

40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(1). INGAA supports the “placeholder” approach and EPA should adopt it 

on reconsideration.

A separate source of confusion confronts reporters who seek to apply BAMM seamlessly 

in 2011, 2012 and beyond (for example, because there is no safe way to obtain the measurements 

otherwise prescribed in Subpart W). In these cases, it is unclear how the content requirements 

and decision criteria for the April 30th filing versus the September 30th should be applied when 

the reporter files a BAMM request.
- 4 -

INGAA urges EPA to reconsider the Final Rule to address this problem. The content 

requirements and approval criteria for the April 30th and September 30th BAMM requests should 

be expanded, or a separate class of these requests should be created, to accommodate cases 

where BAMM will be requested for 2012 and beyond. April 30th requests, which under the 

placeholder approach would serve as written notice that BAMM may be requested in the future, 

should identify the potential sources and generally identify the grounds — safety, technical, 

operational, legal, etc. — the reporter may need to cite when it later proposes using BAMM in 

lieu of a prescribed Subpart W methodology. A reporter filing September 30th requests should 

identify the affected source and should be allowed the option of including the same content 

requirements (thus triggering the same decision criteria) that would be used to employ BAMM 

for 2011. Conversely, a reporter seeking to use BAMM for 2012 and beyond should be allowed 

to submit information on its reasonable efforts to obtain the information, services or equipment 

necessary to comply with subpart W. If such information is submitted, EPA should consider it as 

an independent basis for granting the request.

2. The BAMM sunset provision strands sources that become subject to GHG reporting 

after September 30, 2011, or where unpredictable future events necessitate.

Under current regulations, all requests to use BAMM beyond 2011 must be filed by 

September 30, 2011, 40 C.F.R. § 98.234(f)(8)(i). Other than the ability to notify EPA of a 

“potential situation” that may warrant a future BAMM petition, no binding provision is made for 

sources that are not subject to GHG reporting currently, but that become so after September 30th.

There is no reasonable basis for denying BAMM to a natural gas compressor station that 

experiences an increase in throughput, thus exceeding the reporting threshold for the first time;

or denying BAMM to a facility already subject to reporting, that confronts an unpredictable 

facility or operational issue (e.g., low utilization) that precludes measurement, just because these 
- 5 -

events occur after September 30, 2011. These and other situations should be eligible for 

BAMM, and INGAA seeks reconsideration so EPA can offer BAMM to these otherwise 

stranded facilities and unaddressed future events.

 On reconsideration, EPA should also specify the criteria it will use to evaluate requests 

filed after September 30, 2011. Under the Final Rule, EPA “reserves the right to review 

petitions after the deadline” if notified prior to the 2011 deadlines. 40 C.F.R. §98.234(f)(1). 

However, the Final Rule does not indicate the decision criteria EPA will apply to these requests, 

so future access to BAMM is needlessly uncertain. Requests filed after September 30, 2011, 

should be eligible for BAMM under the same criteria available under the Final Rule (as modified 

in response to the other issues contained in this petition).

3. The criteria for approving BAMM for 2012 and beyond should be modified to 

recognize employee safety more fully.

The Final Rule provides that EPA does not anticipate a need to approve BAMM 

beyond 2011 “except in extreme circumstances, which include safety . . . .” 40 C.F.R. 

§ 98.234(f)(8). INGAA does not consider safeguarding employee safety to be an extreme 

circumstance, and we urge EPA to grant reconsideration so it can articulate a standard that more 

fully recognizes the imperative nature of maintaining employee safety.

4. Numerous technical elements of Subpart W remain unclear, confusing, overly 

complicated or conflicting.

A number of the provisions in the Final Rule — particularly those dealing with reporting 

requirements; segment-specific source inclusion; source-specific emission estimation methods;

and values and assumptions for facility-specific parameters — are unclear, possibly erroneous or 

conflicting. For example, the data elements for reporting reciprocating compressor emissions, 40 

C.F.R. § 98.236(c)(14), cite equations and methods in 40 C.F.R. § 98.233(p). However, there are 
- 6 -

inconsistencies or confusing requirements when reconciling the measurements to be conducted, 

the equations and parameters to be used for estimating emissions, and the data elements to 

report. As another example, there instances where a reporter will be required to use different 

values for a calculation parameter (e.g., gas quality) when estimating emissions for different 

sources within the same facility. It is imperative that EPA address unclear, confusing, overly 

complicated, or conflicting requirements associated with emission sources, emission estimation

methods, and reporting requirements in Subpart W. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the arguments and authorities presented above, and the central relevance of the 

issues presented to the outcome of the rules contemplated in this docket, INGAA urges EPA to 

grant reconsideration of the Final Rule pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Dan Regan, Regulatory Attorney

 dregan@ingaa.org

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

20 F St., N.W., Suite 450

Washington, DC 20001

January 31, 2010